Wikipedia Criticism

[alanschu]

I agree with your assessment of textbooks.

 

The only quality textbooks I have ever found were some of my University ones, which actually paid attention to citing references appropriately, and attempted to make their bias clear at the beginning of the textbook.

[blue]

Wiki is good for finding out what sources the folks who dominate an entry think are important. You need to assume that there are other sources also.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point. Not all entries are controversial, but always with Wiki verify first and trust later.

 

Wiki is just one wrench in our information toolbag. It doesn't fit all nuts ( ), but it has uses, inc serendipitous discovery. Know how it works and when to use it and there's no need to throw it out. Heck, if I discarded all flawed tools I'd never go online.

Edited September 14, 2006 by blue

[Oerwinde]

Read the Gothic 3 wikipedia article! It is 100% correct! Trust me! )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They erased my edit

[Nartwak]

By the way, that little bit "the truth is not notable" is wonderful!

 

The only stuff I really trust on wiki is the stuff I believe (hope) is not notable!

 

The rest of the stuff on wiki is certainly false - somewhere! But where?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks. :D I was hoping someone would appreciate that.

 

 

It's a good resource if you want to figure out random internet crap, but as a resource for other things it's useless. I know a lot of professors that will outright fail a student if he/she tries to use wikipedia as a reference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If they cited it as a primary reference I would, were I a professor.

 

I enjoyed listening to the speech (I didn't read it, I think it would've been hard to read). Jason Scott presented a some good arguments, and had a few funny jokes within. He might be making it into a bigger issue than everyone sees it, but he also might be right. He said that Wikipedia is just a warning of what is to come in the future, an information war. One of the dangers is that Wikipedia becomes source material for people's beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for taking the time to listen to it. I'm a bit surprised so many people had trouble reading the transcript!

[Fenghuang]

I use Wikipedia to fill in the gaps of my knowledge of DC/Marvel's bloated continuity.

[mkreku]

Read the Gothic 3 wikipedia article! It is 100% correct! Trust me! )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They erased my edit

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What..? Noone has touched mine, and it's been a lot of hours since I did the edit. What did you try to add?

[Hassat Hunter]

mkreku is the biggest Gothic fan ever.

 

Long live the history page.

From the few times I did studies I compared details with Wikipedia and they matched all the time.

So; there *might* be inaccurate info; but there is a large chance that will be edited out quite quickly. You have to be unlucky if to hit that page on an incorrect time...

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I use wikipedia as a starting point. If I am doing research for a paper I search the site for the topic I am doing and see what sources they list for it then head to the library to look up those sources.

[Blank]

Long live the history page.

From the few times I did studies I compared details with Wikipedia and they matched all the time.

So; there *might* be inaccurate info; but there is a large chance that will be edited out quite quickly. You have to be unlucky if to hit that page on an incorrect time...

That's not the only problem though. Like I said earlier, one problem is that people use Wikipedia as the source of their information, no references.

 

Jason Scott presented this idea in the form of an analogy to illegitimate children:

So the first criticism is that if it's on Wikipedia, you shouldn't believe

in it.  Now this is what I call the illegitimate child theory.  People say "Well, you know, you shouldn't have unprotected sex.  You should not have

sex in a way that you do not regret the outcome."  That's fantastic. 

That would explain all the illegitimate children that occur every year. 

You know, you can say how people should be, and then you can see how

people are.

People believe Wikipedia, even when there aren't sources. This isn't really dangerous now, as you have even said, it is pretty accurate. But as it becomes more and more popular a venue, you get all sorts of people coming to try and make up their own history:

What Wikipedia ... and this is the function of this speech, is not to

criticise Wikipedia but to point out how Wikipedia represents the first

wave of a coming information war and something where the Internet, as it

becomes more important as a source of information, is going to be headed

off by certain forces, by certain techniques, some of which are successful

and some of which are not, and because Wikipedia has let itself be open to

this we are seeing these techniques in use today, where in ten years they

will actually affect lives directly.  In 20 years, they will be vital to

lives.  Wikipedia, because of it's high page rank, becomes the source

material, and it has a large amount of people who want to do things for

it, a large amount of people who want to control it, and a large amount of

people who want to wreck it.

 

There are a few examples in the speech that tell about how there are basically editing wars on all sorts of subjects, and they get closed down because of how much junk is getting thrown around. People write scripts to alert them of when a change is made to the site, and maybe a script to delete any changes.

 

Jason Scott didn't mention it, but this happened to the wiki entry on those idiots known as Myg0t. The page is closed down because people didn't want this or that being said, and people wanted to say this and that. I read some of the deletion review for it, why it got closed and junk. I'm pretty sure there was a constant war of editing before it got shut down. One reason for nominating it for deletion being "Trollvertisement".

 

Wikipedia's great, fantastic even, as long as it stays as a recreational/general usage thing. Like what Hades uses it for, or what Feng said about keeping current with the comic continuation. Or just to web browse and surf, for fun. NOT the sum of human knowledge.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Blank

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Is it fair to blame Wikipedia for the acts of stupid people?

 

EDIT: *whispers* Pssst... Its not Hades, its Pink Bunny. I'm in incognito.

Edited September 15, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[Blank]

+-->

QUOTE(Hades )

Is it fair to blame Wikipedia for the acts of stupid people?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, but is Wikipedia being affected by stupid people? Yes. Who to blame isn't the aim of the speech, what is happening is.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Blank

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Point.

[Fenghuang]

Anybody got any idea why Hades is using his Invisible Rabbit account again?

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Because I am using my primary computer.

[metadigital]

+-->

QUOTE(Hades )

Is it fair to blame Wikipedia for the acts of stupid people?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, but is Wikipedia being affected by stupid people? Yes. Who to blame isn't the aim of the speech, what is happening is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You aren't going to build a magical device to help stupid LAZY people.

 

Wikipedia works as well as it can: if one reads an uncited section, then it is just conjecture (automatically). Until I have seen true and reliable (accurate and precise, that is, in scientific lingo) text, then it is just opinion.

[LadyCrimson]

Apparently even one of the co-founders may be disatisfied with the results of Wiki. He's creating an off-shoot called the "Citizendium" which will not allow annoymous, non-logged in alterations. Supposedly it will demand real names as usernames, as well, although exactly how they'll try to enforce that they give no mention.

 

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/53137.html

 

He faulted Wikipedia contributors and editors for irregular adherence to the rules, widespread anonymity and associated troublemaking, and an inner circle of editors that has become insular, and sometimes, insulting.

 

"As a result, it seems likely that the project will never escape its amateurism," he wrote. "Indeed, one might say that Wikipedia is committed to amateurism. In an encyclopedia, there's something wrong with that."

 

Of course, it remains to be seen whether something of this sort would actually take off on the internet - the 'general masses' of the internet users never like restrictions.

[Pop]

Heh, a Wikipedia reformation has happened before. A bunch of Wikipedia trolls went off to form their own group, Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is a wiki concerning itself with internet drama and fads. Sometimes it's funny, most of the time it's just crass.

[Musopticon?]

It's crass as heck. And half the time funny beyond compare.

 

I wouldn't exactly recommend clicking any time or number links. Seriously.

[mkreku]

What do you mean you can't rely on wikipedia?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=55363645

 

[metadigital]

What do you mean you can't rely on wikipedia?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=55363645

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Has someone been editing?

[Dark_Raven]

Wiki is the modern day Library of Alexandria.

[Pop]

Wiki is the modern day Library of Alexandria.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a bit of a stretch.

[Krookie]

Wikipedia rules