Wikipedia?

[Aero]

Ok, well I was having a discussion with another student the other day about Wikipedia. We were trying to find out who created the first flying wing designed aircraft. So I plugged it into google and pulled up the Wikipedia page that came in first and found out who. Then one of the guys in my group said "Oh thats from wikipedia, I don't trust it". He gave me the whole "Its up there so anyone can edit it so it must be wrong" speech. Then someone else in my group said "It's almost always right because of the number of people that use the site and look out for bad information". The guy who was against the use said "But people change it all the time", I asked him if he did, he said yes and I called him a failure to society (hey its my job to make sure our Wiki stays clean, so its kinda personal :lick:).

ANYWAY, I was wondering what you all think. Throughout high school my teachers thought Wikipedia was amazing. I would get handouts for History, English, and math printed directly off of Wikipedia. Now that I'm in College, the professors will essentially castrate you if you so much as think of using Wikipedia ever. SO what do you guys think?

Is Wikipedia a good invention?

[noopypoop]

I thinks its great, but my librarian kicks you out of the library if you use it because its not"real". But I agree, the majority of the people who edit know what theyr talking about and of course your ip gets blocked if your being an idiot who thinks your the only one who thought of putting something stupid and unrelated on a wiki page.

[IndyRacer27]

I use it all the time as a first source of info. However, I take it all with a bit of skepticism and double check elsewhere before I trust what I read.

[Xpirate]

I agree with IndyRacer. It is a pretty good source of information, but you should always double check.

[slytherock]

Agree with both above. Just a little precision:

If you look to a (let say nobody, or average I think it's better) personality. I'll take for exemple someone we all know but who's a stranger to the mass: Mafia boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MafiaBoy)
(I've take this one cause you know who it is, and dont really have much on him on wiki)

His description is far from complete, stats can be wrong (I've check them all: they're all right) On first look: I wont thrust and seek from other sources.

BTW I'm not a hacker to know so much about him, it's just that he was on TV a bit earlier ;)


But if you take someone famous, like John Von Neumann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann)
His description is almost complete, his accomplishments are all link to other sources. Well, maybe it's just me but I have tendencies to believe it without remorses.

Maybe I'm a bit naive on this, but that's how I see it.

[tinker]

I use it all the time but normally I try to not use it as my primary source. Usually not because I don't trust the content but teachers won't allow it.

[Quakken]

On most larger topics, there will be many sources cited and the information will be true.

I used it nearly exclusively for my paper on lenin. This is of course one of the examples where there is gobs of information, many people visit and make it better, and correct any mistakes.

If there aren't any citations noted at the bottom of the page, its very hard to trust a page. If there are, you can fact check there, and usually the page will be truthful.

But its your discretion. Either way, I have always thought wikipedia to be trustworthy and have never seen any blatantly wrong information.

[chaksq]

I trust wikipedia. It's my homepage actually, I use it so much. I mostly use it for a quick overview of something. Say the PoweredUSB specifications, or for a quick look at a car model for stuff like year differences. I actually have a professor who encourages use of wikipedia, I have a feeling he might write articles for it. Most of my professors hate it for some reason. I hate people who are purposely malicious with wikipedia, just so they can discredit it.

[Indybird]

My school blocked wikipedia :mad:. Most teachers hate it, though one of my teachers said its OK, but hes awesome like that.

I like wikipedia, but I've found that its not a good source for research because it usually only provides a summary of everything; no details. Mind you it may have several printed pages worth of summary but it still is summary, so it cant be a main source for a project.

Im a huge wiki fan and a definite wiki contributor: anyone remember TBCS in wikipedia? (made by yours truly), they deleted that... "not relevant" or some BS like that. Oh well...

-Indybird

[Trace]

My English teacher was telling me how bad it was. She said one of her colleagues put an article about "Engli****is" (made up disease). When we were in the library a few days after said colleague had put it up, I looked it up to prove how good it was and it had been deleted the day it got put up... I love wikipedia, but do get a second source!

[Drum Thumper]

My English teacher was telling me how bad it was. She said one of her colleagues put an article about "Engli****is" (made up disease). When we were in the library a few days after said colleague had put it up, I looked it up to prove how good it was and it had been deleted the day it got put up... I love wikipedia, but do get a second source!

Exactly. There's a reason why things need references.

Which reminds me, our wiki needs help in that area.

Getting back on track here--Aero, I know exactly what you mean. My college classes have a very strict 'No Wikipedia' policy. I, however, do toe the line on occasion. For example, I had to write a paper on steroid use and abuse. One week before it was due, the Chris Benoit tragedy happened. Wikipedia became my goto source to find OTHER sources, ie the references that were on that page.

Yes, Wikipedia is a great tool to use, but be sure it's not the only tool you use.

[xmastree]

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/5e/ThatsNoMoonThatsWikipedia.jpg (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)

"Wikipedia is in fact a Massively Multiplayer Online Editing Game played by experts in redundancy, skepticism, pseudoscience, hyperlinking, reverting articles, demanding reliable sources, redundancy, verification, redundancy, identifying original research and initiating subtle flamewars over what is encyclopedic."

:rolleyes:

[noopypoop]

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/5e/ThatsNoMoonThatsWikipedia.jpg
(http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)

"Wikipedia is in fact a Massively Multiplayer Online Editing Game played by experts in redundancy, skepticism, pseudoscience, hyperlinking, reverting articles, demanding reliable sources, redundancy, verification, redundancy, identifying original research and initiating subtle flamewars over what is encyclopedic."

:rolleyes:



A deserveed +rep for the laugh!:)

[Commando]

Sorry I haven't been around, I love discussions like this. I've been uber busy with work.


I thinks its great, but my librarian kicks you out of the library if you use it because its not"real".

I feel I can really give you a good answer here (as a business major for 6 years). Every source of info is influenced by something. If you can determine that influence is not detrimental or comes from your same point of view then it's reliable.

Financial info is the worst, then political, then commercial, then historical.

For example if you are into stocks(and know what your doing) the first thing you do when you hear financial news is look who is giving it and what is their angle.

Better example. I love FOX news but I will be the first to admit your listening to Rupert Murdock's personal opinions when you listen to the news. It just so happens I agree with most of his opinions.

On flight I read an article about Wikipedia that I'll never forget.

If you know anything about web development the first question you'd ask is where are the ads? There are none.... The developers haven't put ads on that site even though even the smallest addition would make billions. I do mean billions.

So the next time any teacher talks about unbiased information you ask them how much the author of the book they are teaching from is making from the royalties of that book.

I'm a huge proponent of Wikipedia. It's the free market of info. It doesn't get much more unbiased than that.

[J-Roc]

One thing worth mentioning is the fact that when an encyclopedia set is published and eventually makes it way to a class room or library, most of the technical bits have been negated by new information. New cures, techniques, fabrication methods, ect ect have been rewritten so many times over the years that a paperback book cannot keep up with the changes. So an online ever evolving reasource database is crutial for up to date information. I would consider wiki to be more reliable and more eco friendly than any paper back siblings.

So what if there might be a few bits of wrong information. Pick up a book and you'll find even more errors.

[Drum Thumper]

Commando--I'll have to bring this up with my instructors if they start the 'no wikipedia, it's not trustworthy' line again. Very interesting point of view.

And I disagree with financial info being worse than political info. How do you think those politicians got rich in the first place? There's a sucker born every minute you know...

[Aero]

Commando, thats quite interesting. I had never thought of wikipedia in that way, wel, not explicitly anyway. One of the great things I have always liked is that they do often have both sides of an arguement represented and it usually comes out quite unbiased (sure theres a few places people flame it, but over all its kept very clean)

Jroc, why do you think we decided to put a ModdersWiki up;). Everything happens so fast, new techniques are made, fabrication taken to new levels, we wants a place were the cutting edge of modding can be shown to everyone. Man I love the wiki system.

[Ichbin]

Its information that although is created by the people, is upkeeped and moderated by the people making it less substantial.

however you will find 95% of wikipedia is in fact correct information, use it to help you find your information faster. Read the wiki, and skim through a book to double confirm or just google it sommore.

I use wikipedia all the time still but i cite other websites.

[xRyokenx]

I believe the information on Wikipedia is fairly accurate, hell, if someone has any doubt they can always check it on another source, lol.

Now if there ever was a place for bad information... Uncyclopedia would be it, lol.

[Crazy Buddhist]

If you know anything about web development the first question you'd ask is where are the ads? There are none.... The developers haven't put ads on that site even though even the smallest addition would make billions. I do mean billions.

So the next time any teacher talks about unbiased information you ask them how much the author of the book they are teaching from is making from the royalties of that book.

I'm a huge proponent of Wikipedia. It's the free market of info. It doesn't get much more unbiased than that.


Very well said.

Wikipedia is a political phenomenon. It is part of a mass movement towards self-control and self-creation that marks the end of one political era and the beginning of a new, far more anarchich one. This movement began in the sixties and is coming to fruition now.

The professors who hate wikipedia are the current guardians of "truth" in our societies. Of course they hate wikipedia. It threatens their power, status and eventually jobs. Who needs a professor when all you really need is someone to tell you how to use the internet and you can learn anything?

Matthew

[Durrthock]

A study was done and it proved that wikipedia was nearly as accurate as encyclopedia Britannica.

[Aero]

Now if there ever was a place for bad information... Uncyclopedia would be it, lol.

or www.urbandictionary.com