View Full Version : What's the deal with Wikipedia?
Seems like a very comprehensive source of information, but then I notice these little "edit" links all over the place. So I click one and am presented with the very thing I was just reading, inside a text form, with a disclaimer about editing the content. There was a submit button and everything.
So here's my question: can anyone edit that stuff?? Presumeably anything submitted does not get immediately posted, but still. I would think such a site would be managed by academics and professionals in the relevant fields. Sort of like a souped up version of about.com, only where the subjectmatter experts really are genuine experts.
What do guys think about Wikipedia? Do you use it often? Biased in obvious ways? Similar sites that are more reliable?
Nope, everyone can edit.
The idea is that if anyone comes along and seriously f**ks stuff up, someone will eventually fix it. I think its great „ I can correct and add to sections I know stuff about when I notice omissions!
As for bias: no, not really. Not noticeably anyway. Other references may be more canonical, but you usually have to pay for them, and they don't have the same anarchic joie de vivre about them. ;)
How to edit a Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page
Wow. That's kind of surprising and a little discouraging. By definition that probably means there's some seriously bogus shite in there from time to time....
Once you figure out just how wikipedia works, you realise why these linux kids love it. They have an awful lot in common with each other.
To me it's the same bullshit headache as dealing with linux to begin with. I'd rather just go look it up in Brittanica or something else.
To me it's the same bullshit headache as dealing with linux to begin with. I'd rather just go look it up in Brittanica or something else.
The wikipedia is a pretty awesome resource, and I've rarely found any glaring errors. Just try looking up any little thing...your obscure little hometown, a brand-name or whatever. There's tons of stuff you can find in there that definitely will not be in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Encarta, etc.
I'll use it as long as it stays useful.
I really like the system they have there, it makes the information make more sense. Great concept too.
So you guys don't bump into any glaring errors from people who just "post out their arse" as it were? People adding political or religious spin into things even?
So you guys don't bump into any glaring errors from people who just "post out their arse" as it were? People adding political or religious spin into things even?
Nope.
Generally, if something's completely f**ked, then someone will fix it eventually. In my experience, it's been pretty accurate.
Besides, there's not a great deal of "spin" you can really put on the Franco-Prussian war of 1872 or Hegel (for example). Doubtlessly, some of the articles come from a slightly weird angle... but no publication can be completely bias-free.
Actually, a lot of the material comes from out-of-copyright encyclopaedias anyway.
autodata
2004-06-08, 09:08
The only place I've really seen crap is in the current event sort of entries where people are trying to push their political bias of the moment. If you edit it out, the guy babysitting what he views as his article will try to start a war.
For everything other than immediate current events, it's pretty damn good. You can get a good amount of important info written in a way that's easy to understand.
Sorry guys, you are seriously underrating Wikipedia here. It is an awesome idea, and your concern of in-accurateness simply is not true - too many people watch the recent pages for "obvious vandalism" for that to happen! Quite the contrary; the content keeps getting more and better. It works much better than you'd think it does.
Only thing is those server issues...
All right then... I'm sold for now. I guess I'll keep that shiny new link on my Links Bar until such time as I see something wildly fooked up as it were.
drewprops
2009-09-21, 10:34
^bump^
First of all, because it's interesting to read early reactions to Wikipedia, and secondly because I'm interested in adding two articles to the website and am wondering if any of our folks have become docents with Wikipedia.
I'm just looking for advice on the correct procedures to follow, and am googling around for sites with advice and reading through the rules that Wikipedia provides to potential contributors.
Pretty interesting how quickly something can become indispensable...... ;)
...
I didn't notice the date when I read the first post, and I though maybe Moogs had been hit on the head or something. :lol:
I've never created an article before, but I didn't try doing some serious editing. It was very painful and I stopped because I was writing on Sri Lanka and didn't realize at first how dedicated people involved in the conflict to editing wars. I still pop on to make little edits to much less controversial topics.
I guess my only advice is "don't write an article about Sri Lanka".
ezkcdude
2009-09-21, 11:17
Wikipedia has been around since 2001. But does anyone remember when it started getting really big? Was it only in 2004? Seems like yesterday, but then again, it feels like Wikipedia has been around for ages already.
I didn't notice the date when I read the first post, and I though maybe Moogs had been hit on the head or something. :lol:
Yeah I saw the thread title and my name and I'm thinking "I don't even remember writing a thread like that!" :lol: Blast from the past.
Dorian Gray
2009-09-21, 11:59
I didn't notice the date when I read the first post, and I though maybe Moogs had been hit on the head or something. :lol:
I've never created an article before, but I didn't try doing some serious editing. It was very painful and I stopped because I was writing on Sri Lanka and didn't realize at first how dedicated people involved in the conflict to editing wars. I still pop on to make little edits to much less controversial topics.
I guess my only advice is "don't write an article about Sri Lanka".
I've seen many strange interpretations of history on Wikipedia, sometimes presented as though they were mainstream academic positions. This is a bit worrying.
Wikipedia is amazing and I use it a lot, but very often when I come across a topic I know something about, I notice mistakes - some serious. This makes me cautious about trusting it on topics that I don't know much about.
And while Wikipedia has entries on utterly obscure weapons systems and psychiatric conditions that may never have existed outside the minds of fringe researchers, it also has some pretty big holes. One I noticed a few days ago was the lack of an article on Sabine Weiss, an important humanist photographer. I suppose the point of Wikipedia is for me to write one up, but I've not yet tried to contribute to Wikipedia and the process is arcane.
I work at a school and so everything goes out of one of our 3 proxy servers so when our little jack off kids go to edit it they now block us. Here's a fun entry,
"LOLOLOLOL U C4NT ST0P M3!!!!!!11!!11!1two"
Naderfan
2009-09-21, 13:58
My favorite Wikipedia story is from the first time I TA'd and three students decided to plagiarize their paper on the New York Conspiracy Trials of the 1740s from Wikipedia. It was super easy to bust them because while the star witness in reality was a white indentured servant (which was a key point, because it made her testimony, which was all hearsay, acceptable), Wikipedia had her as a black slave. I believe that after I told him, Alcimedes here recommended altering articles dealing with assignments on a regular basis. :)
So while I think that it can be a great source for general ideas/basic background, I would never use it as a source myself. But then again, I also wouldn't use regular encyclopedias as a source in my academic work either.
Nothing you read on Wikipedia is to be believed, unless it's cited and the source is reliable. It's tempting to assume that "oh well if it was wrong, someone would fix it!" until you realize that 1) if everyone is thinking that, nothing is getting done, and 2) when you encounter something on Wikipedia you know is wrong, do you fix it?
It's a good place to get started if you use the references. But nothing—repeat, nothing—on there should be taken seriously unless it's cited.
(...) entries on utterly obscure weapons systems (...)
And today the featured article was an episode of Family Guy. Too much bloody pop culture if you ask me.
All couch and no war makes Tommy a dull boy.
:devil:
ezkcdude
2009-09-21, 14:55
It's a good place to get started if you use the references. But nothing—repeat, nothing—on there should be taken seriously unless it's cited.
...and even then, only if you can verify the cited reference! :)
Now that we are a few years on from Wikipedia, I've found that the thing I like least about it is that its ubiquity has only served to make internet arguments even more retarded than they were previously. Now, any idiot can go "read up" real quick and grab a handful of bullet points about a topic that might be reasonably accurate and act as though they actually know what the fuck they are talking about. Or worse, even trying to refute your own knowledge because something you said didn't perfectly fit with what wikipedia had to say about it.
There are few things more ridiculous than watching two people furiously arguing at one another while their primary sourced links are from wikipedia.
billybobsky
2009-09-21, 18:14
when you encounter something on Wikipedia you know is wrong, do you fix it?
Actually, yes.
Yeah, I normally do too. it's a great way to procrastinate in the middle of a paper ;)
julesstoop
2009-09-21, 20:34
I do too. It sorta feels normal and responsible to do so, to me. Don't know why, after all, I'm from the C64 generation :)
stevegong
2009-09-25, 11:38
When I was in college, I found that editing and contributing to articles was a great way to test myself and see if I really knew the material. I even started a few pages that have since taken on lives of their own. It helps the community, helps yourself, and makes you feel productive. So why not.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.