DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: orcus116 on July 01, 2011, 09:15:30 AM
-
I've been wondering this for awhile now since it pops up every so often, usually to discredit something that they don't agree on or something that's obviously inaccurate. If this were 10 years ago when Wikipedia was in its infancy and rogue editors ran wild then yeah I'd probably agree that some of the information was suspect. But it's 2011 where nearly every article is not only cited but the joke edits are easily spotted and quickly removed*. Like almost all schools, I'm not saying people should cite Wikipedia itself but considering that we've reached a point where the information is pretty much paraphrased from the sources that are directly linked why shouldn't those facts be believed? It's as if a sentence/paragraph on Wikipedia is considered suspicious but if someone visits a cited site and sees the same sentence/paragraph it's suddenly correct. Now is everything on the website 100% correct? More than likely not, just like there are factual inaccuracies in a large number of academic texts that go through annual updates, but I think we've reached a point where we can take the information provided with a few more grains of salt.
* - My friend is one of thousands of Wikipedia Admins who patrol the site constantly. I've seen him sit there for hours editing pages and reverting old pages back. According to him the site is heavily policed.
-
It's certainly much improved, but it's also still fairly editorialized. Music articles are often the work of fanboys. Business entries are often written by their own marketing departments. I've read plenty of things that read like an advertisement.
-
It's simple. Use wikipedia and put the links and references below as sources of information.
-
It's not that its a bad place to start to find info and I use it often, but I would never cite it, and tell my students not to either. The fact that most pages can be editted by anyone makes it a risky proposition because the average person is not an authority on any subject. Before the internet, print was the thing, and if your material didn't pass muster, your company got a bad reputation and that would ruin it. What wiki does provide most of the time are citations to PRIMARY sources, which of course are citable, and that is how wiki should be used.
I don't believe the density of PBr3 is 2.28 g/mL because that's what is listed on wiki, but because that's the value on the MSDS they cite.
-
It's also written by people who want to write about the subjects - people volunteer to write about the things they're interested in writing about, rather than the things they're not, which means that neutrality, while moderated for, is nonetheless a little limited.
I tend to think of it as a compendium of data. You shouldn't be referencing it anyway, 'cause there's nothing original in there. Go via the references at the bottom, always.
-
Overall it is very good quality I would say. But of course, the problem is that a certain statement in a Wikipedia article can't be traced to the author, unlike external links which usually are.
But I agree with you completely, orcus, the "well, it's Wikipedia, so I don't need a counter-argument" is a lazy knee-jerk reaction these days.
rumborak
-
It's simple. Use wikipedia and put the links and references below as sources of information.
This, this, and this.
-
It's a conspiracy perpetuated by print encyclopedias in an attempt to stay relevant.
-
It's certainly much improved, but it's also still fairly editorialized. Music articles are often the work of fanboys. Business entries are often written by their own marketing departments. I've read plenty of things that read like an advertisement.
It's also written by people who want to write about the subjects - people volunteer to write about the things they're interested in writing about, rather than the things they're not, which means that neutrality, while moderated for, is nonetheless a little limited.
I tend to think of it as a compendium of data. You shouldn't be referencing it anyway, 'cause there's nothing original in there. Go via the references at the bottom, always.
These. It can hardly be considered a "scholarly" source, but for quick info it's pretty much unbeatable. You just have to keep in mind that you don't know the writers' biases, motives, or expertise, so take it with a grain of salt. Some of that goes for pretty much everything, not just Wikipedia.
The "lol Wikipedia" stuff is probably overdone, but it's still dumb to cite it in a serious discussion, or God forbid a paper, for reasons mentioned above. The beauty of Wikipedia is being able to quickly familiarize yourself with some basic info on a topic you're curious about.
-J
-
But I agree with you completely, orcus, the "well, it's Wikipedia, so I don't need a counter-argument" is a lazy knee-jerk reaction these days.
rumborak
Still valid, though. Globally editable content is not a valid reference for fact. Peer review is much more expert controlled and still has problems, but at least they keep errata. There aren't enough moderators of enough global skill to guarantee accuracy. Reading articles in your own technical field iscan still be skewed towards biased perspective since nobody outside the field has any idea what's going on and somebody that shouldn't have control does. Then on personal information, this last week I saw a Santana bass player had to edit his own page because it was rife with mundane falsehoods about him.
The best way to use it is to find what you're looking for, then use a provided valid source or just use what you read to guide an independent search. The problem with any wiki isn't in the quality of their content, it's in the premise of how content is controlled. Wiki's can be fantastic guides, but being a valid source takes more than that.
-
Well said, Yorost. It is a terrific guide. But it is not authoritative, for the reasons you and others have stated.
-
The math/science pages are a good wealth of information, actually. And I'd say 99% of it is fact
-
I don't think anyone said otherwise.
-
Guys I just realized something. If someone takes a Wikipedia page and edits the fuck out of it with fallacies n' junk, how would one know what information is false? I mean, it's not like they can now go to Wikipedia to do a quick fact check.
:neverusethis:
-
I don't think anyone said otherwise.
I didn't bother reading the other posts :P