Wikipedia....what happens when geeks and nerds can write thier own encyclopedia

[Wheezer]

WTF wikipedia

snip:

You. Your friends and family. Your classmates and coworkers. In the brave new world of the internet, everybody has power. Information is interactive, knowledge is collaborative and history is open source. The nerdy kid next door has just as much influence as a high school teacher; the dorky dude at the comic book shop has just as much voice as a college professor.

Problem is, the nerds and dorks tend to have a lot more free time - and passion - than the teachers and professors. The end result? A hilariously skewed, terrifyingly twisted view of the world in which all the wrong things are deemed "important" and worthy of serious academic discussion.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
WTF wikipedia

snip:

You. Your friends and family. Your classmates and coworkers. In the brave new world of the internet, everybody has power. Information is interactive, knowledge is collaborative and history is open source. The nerdy kid next door has just as much influence as a high school teacher; the dorky dude at the comic book shop has just as much voice as a college professor.

Problem is, the nerds and dorks tend to have a lot more free time - and passion - than the teachers and professors. The end result? A hilariously skewed, terrifyingly twisted view of the world in which all the wrong things are deemed "important" and worthy of serious academic discussion.

I think wikipedia is not too bad most of the time. I am startled by how many people edit the thing, jeez don't they hvae lives.

 

[0roo0roo]

well its just a popular culture thing pop culture=hobby. less study ww2 as a hobby

 

[alkemyst]

I had thought about expanding the wiki on things I know a lot about but have no time to handle it and then the post-handling of vandalism.

 

[Legendary]

A lot of facile comparisons there. The WWII wiki page is a summary page with links to different aspects of the war, and those links summarized under some headings. Each of those links is full of much more specific information.

Clicking around Wikipedia is what makes it useful.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea the subpages of ww2 are quite vast. it had to be split apart or it would be overwhelming

 

[skace]

Basically, that article is retarded bullshit. Why do they care if video game articles are large anyways? Who gives a shit, it's not like it's a physical library with limited space and video game articles are pushing all the other articles off of wikipedia.

 

[frostedflakes]

LOL, some obvious bias against Wikipedia there. It has its problems, but I still consider it to be one of the most useful sites on the internet when you want a concise summary of a certain subject.

 

[Rowboat]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
LOL, some obvious bias against Wikipedia there. It has its problems, but I still consider it to be one of the most useful sites on the internet when you want a concise summary of a certain subject.

Yup, the article was pretty funny, but did not really consider the accuracy of the articles which is the important thing. I love wiki because the information presented is in a similar format across all articles. It really makes gathering information much easier.

 

[eLiu]

Look, ANYBODY can edit wikipedia, am I right? So clearly we are getting the absolute BEST information out there! C'MON guys

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: eLiu
Look, ANYBODY can edit wikipedia, am I right? So clearly we are getting the absolute BEST information out there! C'MON guys

I think your trying sarcasm, but, in fact, it's true.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Legendary
A lot of facile comparisons there. The WWII wiki page is a summary page with links to different aspects of the war, and those links summarized under some headings. Each of those links is full of much more specific information.

Clicking around Wikipedia is what makes it useful.

Seriously. The amount of information on Wikipedia about historical topics is enormous. Articles dealing with recent things do tend to be longer than they should be, and include information that they shouldn't, because Wikipedia editors have an e-penis orgasm if they're the first to edit some recent news into an article. If a famous person dies, it's on Wikipedia before the family is notified. Eventually the articles will get cleaned up. But the fact that the Call of Duty 4 page has so much unencyclopedic information in it is an indication that serious Wikipedia editors have good priorities. It hasn't been cleaned up yet, because there are more important articles to deal with.

 

[Cogman]

I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

 

[dighn]

meh. wikipedia editors have no obligation to give information on any specific subject. As far as I'm concerned as long as they give accurate info, then it's good. It should be obvious that topics more popular to the demographic will receive more attention. I don't see how it provides a skewed world view.

 

[nageov3t]

I think wikipedia is as useful as any other encyclopedia... and it updates a helluva lot faster than my 1989 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

would I site it in an academic paper above the 6th grade level? hell no. but that doesn't mean I don't reference it for random information or as a jumping off point almost daily.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Cogman
I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

Well I can understand teachers' frustration with Wikipedia, I think a lot of students don't understand how it works and assume all the information on it is factual. You obviously have to read any article critically and be skeptical of any information that isn't cited or sounds ridiculous. For a lot of my college courses, citing Wikipedia directly is an automatic F on a paper, lol. It's a good starting point, but for any serious research you need to explore the cited articles and papers as well.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Cogman
I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

Well I can understand teachers' frustration with Wikipedia, I think a lot of students don't understand how it works and assume all the information on it is factual. You obviously have to read any article critically and be skeptical of any information that isn't cited or sounds ridiculous. For a lot of my college courses, citing Wikipedia directly is an automatic F on a paper, lol. It's a good starting point, but for any serious research you need to explore the cited articles and papers as well.

Citing any encyclopedia for a college paper should be an automatic F. I was taught in Jr. High that citing encyclopedias is not acceptable.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Cogman
I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

Well I can understand teachers' frustration with Wikipedia, I think a lot of students don't understand how it works and assume all the information on it is factual. You obviously have to read any article critically and be skeptical of any information that isn't cited or sounds ridiculous. For a lot of my college courses, citing Wikipedia directly is an automatic F on a paper, lol. It's a good starting point, but for any serious research you need to explore the cited articles and papers as well.

Citing any encyclopedia for a college paper should be an automatic F. I was taught in Jr. High that citing encyclopedias is not acceptable.

And I can completely agree with that. What I don't agree with is the fact that they treat it like ever word written there is contrary to the subject it is supposed to speak on.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Cogman
I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

Well I can understand teachers' frustration with Wikipedia, I think a lot of students don't understand how it works and assume all the information on it is factual. You obviously have to read any article critically and be skeptical of any information that isn't cited or sounds ridiculous. For a lot of my college courses, citing Wikipedia directly is an automatic F on a paper, lol. It's a good starting point, but for any serious research you need to explore the cited articles and papers as well.

Citing any encyclopedia for a college paper should be an automatic F. I was taught in Jr. High that citing encyclopedias is not acceptable.

And I can completely agree with that. What I don't agree with is the fact that they treat it like ever word written there is contrary to the subject it is supposed to speak on.

I was never taught that, and I don't see why they shouldn't be cited. Are encyclopedias unreliable sources?

Besides, using wikipedia for a paper is easy. You just read/cite the sources as opposed to the main wikipedia article, and use the main article to "translate" if the subject is over your head.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: mugs
But the fact that the Call of Duty 4 page has so much unencyclopedic information in it is an indication that serious Wikipedia editors have good priorities. It hasn't been cleaned up yet, because there are more important articles to deal with.

I disagree with this assessment. The article passed vetting as a Featured Article Candidate, and it has not been changed substantially since its promotion. I think the Plot section is overly long and detailed (roughly 2 sentences per mission), but it is written well.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Cogman
I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

Well I can understand teachers' frustration with Wikipedia, I think a lot of students don't understand how it works and assume all the information on it is factual. You obviously have to read any article critically and be skeptical of any information that isn't cited or sounds ridiculous. For a lot of my college courses, citing Wikipedia directly is an automatic F on a paper, lol. It's a good starting point, but for any serious research you need to explore the cited articles and papers as well.

Citing any encyclopedia for a college paper should be an automatic F. I was taught in Jr. High that citing encyclopedias is not acceptable.

And I can completely agree with that. What I don't agree with is the fact that they treat it like ever word written there is contrary to the subject it is supposed to speak on.

I was never taught that, and I don't see why they shouldn't be cited. Are encyclopedias unreliable sources?

Besides, using wikipedia for a paper is easy. You just read/cite the sources as opposed to the main wikipedia article, and use the main article to "translate" if the subject is over your head.

Encyclopedias aren't very well-regarding largely because the sources of their information aren't always cited, and the summaries that they provide don't always highlight important aspects of the topic at hand. Basically, they usually end up providing third- or even fourth-hand knowledge. When it comes to research papers, primary sources are your absolute best friends.

I don't have any issues with Wikipedia, assuming those who use it see it for what it is--an online encyclopedia that is a great place for obtaining a general, cursory knowledge on a subject, thereby providing a springboard for further study. However, what's truly disturbing (in my mind, anyway) is the number of college students who think Wikipedia is an academic/scientific source.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Cogman
I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

Well I can understand teachers' frustration with Wikipedia, I think a lot of students don't understand how it works and assume all the information on it is factual. You obviously have to read any article critically and be skeptical of any information that isn't cited or sounds ridiculous. For a lot of my college courses, citing Wikipedia directly is an automatic F on a paper, lol. It's a good starting point, but for any serious research you need to explore the cited articles and papers as well.

Citing any encyclopedia for a college paper should be an automatic F. I was taught in Jr. High that citing encyclopedias is not acceptable.

And I can completely agree with that. What I don't agree with is the fact that they treat it like ever word written there is contrary to the subject it is supposed to speak on.

I was never taught that, and I don't see why they shouldn't be cited. Are encyclopedias unreliable sources?

Besides, using wikipedia for a paper is easy. You just read/cite the sources as opposed to the main wikipedia article, and use the main article to "translate" if the subject is over your head.

wiki is a source for sources that need verification and nothing more. it cannot be cited as a source because it is somewhat unreliable.

 

[Jeff7]

Something I've ALWAYS wondered about Superman

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Cogman
I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

Well I can understand teachers' frustration with Wikipedia, I think a lot of students don't understand how it works and assume all the information on it is factual. You obviously have to read any article critically and be skeptical of any information that isn't cited or sounds ridiculous. For a lot of my college courses, citing Wikipedia directly is an automatic F on a paper, lol. It's a good starting point, but for any serious research you need to explore the cited articles and papers as well.

Citing any encyclopedia for a college paper should be an automatic F. I was taught in Jr. High that citing encyclopedias is not acceptable.

considering wikipedia has been cited in a number of supreme court cases, i dont consider it too wrong to use the information contained therein. (EDIT: with proper backup, of course)

i agree with cogman. i've yet to find an article that wasnt at least 99% accurate. the only discrepancies i've seen have been things like editing questioning whether or not there should be articles detailing how to commit copyright violation, or arguments over whether an image is pornographic in nature or not.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Cogman
I find it funny that so many people (Mostly school teachers) will bash the wikipedia, yet the fact remains, CAN THEY GIVE ME A FREAKING EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS INACCURATE / WRONG! and the answer is almost assuredly a resounding no. Seriously, I hear how horrible it is from these people and I have yet to find an article that wasn't fairly accurate.

But no, because everyone can edit that MUST mean that only idiots edit, therefore it is worthless. Hello! Wake up people. The only person that will edit the article on gausses law (or even know that it exists) is someone that has dealt with it.

I have a sister that is a school teacher and she has been brain washed into the "Wikipedia is bad" mind set. One simple question I have asked her "Have you ever used it". Well, um, no. "Well, give it a try before you bash it. Tell you what, pick a topic you know a lot about and go look it up. Then tell me how far off they are on the topic" She never did that I know of, but she also stopped bashing it.

Well I can understand teachers' frustration with Wikipedia, I think a lot of students don't understand how it works and assume all the information on it is factual. You obviously have to read any article critically and be skeptical of any information that isn't cited or sounds ridiculous. For a lot of my college courses, citing Wikipedia directly is an automatic F on a paper, lol. It's a good starting point, but for any serious research you need to explore the cited articles and papers as well.

Citing any encyclopedia for a college paper should be an automatic F. I was taught in Jr. High that citing encyclopedias is not acceptable.

considering wikipedia has been cited in a number of supreme court cases, i dont consider it too wrong to use the information contained therein. (EDIT: with proper backup, of course)

i agree with cogman. i've yet to find an article that wasnt at least 99% accurate. the only discrepancies i've seen have been things like editing questioning whether or not there should be articles detailing how to commit copyright violation, or arguments over whether an image is pornographic in nature or not.

Frosted generally has the right idea, as does Fayd. Wikipedia is definitely NOT an academic source because it doesn't adhere to the stringent peer-review process utilized by journals, nor the in-depth and extensive citation usage of most compiled texts.

Wikipedia is excellent for gathering a good deal of surface-level information, for finding a starting point, or for just brushing up on general knowledge in an area. But the problem is that its citation system isn't regulated in that links to news stories or popular websites are just as viable as links to research studies (which in some cases makes sense). And any encyclopedia-type resource is going to make use of a good deal of summarizing and paraphrasing, which in the case of wikipedia, again, is not very stringently regulated other than by members (who may or may not be entirely knowledgeable in the subject matter).