[idjeff]

It's an "open source" source of information...I honestly don't know...i'm fairly new to the idea. Can we discuss this?

The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise, and so on. It's okay. It's what everyone expects. Instead of asking, "Why aren't these pages copyedited?", you should fix the problems you see yourself. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see.
If someone writes an inferior, merely humorous article, article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's a total waste of time, replace it with brilliant prose (and relegate the deletions to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense or the corresponding talk page). That's the nature of a Wiki.
For the most part, the instinctive desire of an author to "own" what he or she has written is counterproductive here, and it is good to shake up that emotional attachment by making sweeping changes at will when it improves the result. And of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be.

[Randman]

I don't think people should take it as the absolute truth but it is a decent place to start looking for information. I'd always try to verify it with a second source, at least.

[cpt kangarooski]

How can you trust the Encyclopedia Brittanica? Ultimately you're relying on other people. If a particular piece of information is highly important, you should check several different sources, and look to see where they were getting their information from (since it might be a common, inaccurate source). But for casual use, I haven't noticed any particular problems with Wikipedia other than that they could use more articles. I'm very impressed by their effort.

[Spliff]

Randy Kangaroo speaks wisely.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

How can you trust the Encyclopedia Brittanica? Ultimately you're relying on other people. If a particular piece of information is highly important, you should check several different sources, and look to see where they were getting their information from (since it might be a common, inaccurate source). But for casual use, I haven't noticed any particular problems with Wikipedia other than that they could use more articles. I'm very impressed by their effort.

EB is produced by professionals. While errors can and do happen, there is a set of rules for trying to confirm facts.

[cpt kangarooski]

Sure. But that doesn't mean that there aren't errors, and it's a PITA waiting for corrections to issue, I'm sure. The Wikipedia has the benefit of potentially more people checking facts, faster updating (since there's no print version), and being free.

Again, if it were something your life depended on, you would want to verify facts, preferably from the original source. Encyclopedias are not good reference materials, except in a casual, starting point sort of way, you know.

If you're just curious about something, then even if there is an error that no one has caught, it's not the end of the world.

At the very least, you could look through Wikipedia thoroughly on a subject you are extremely familiar with. How many errors you see might give you some vague clue as to how well their editing works. (Though not a perfect notion, obviously, since there's so many people working on little bits of it)

[Chuckit]

The entire idea of a Wiki depends on one basic assumption: that humans are generally good. If most people are trying to keep a Wiki free from misinformation, then that Wiki will be generally trustworthy. The same is true of any other source of knowledge. As the New York Times seems to go out of its way to prove, even the big boys of information can be led astray. Wikipedia is not the God-Given Truth, but it is a great reference work because it combines the knowledge of lots of generally honest contributors who will correct any misinformation some mischief-maker tries to plant in an article.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wikipedia is not the God-Given Truth, but it is a great reference work because it combines the knowledge of lots of generally honest contributors who will correct any misinformation some mischief-maker tries to plant in an article.

Excellent point.

It's all about cross referencing, and thus Wikipedia is probably the closest you will ever get to "the Truth".

[Nicko]

Wiki IMO fits in with other current fads, ie. BLOGS. Maybe its just me, but the notion of something being perpetually edited does not nessesarily make it more reliable, it could infact just be making something more complicated or convoluted.

Am I the only one who is annoyed at how it seems EVERY slashdot article now references Wiki? What, are they the internet now? Are they the only site? Tis' Maddness I say!

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Randman

I don't think people should take it as the absolute truth but it is a decent place to start looking for information. I'd always try to verify it with a second source, at least.

What he said. I've read some pretty tall tales on Wik that people took for fact in here before.

Problem is, there are some zealots that just WAIT for someone to edit it, and they pounce back re-writing history the way THEY want it to be told.

So yeah, take everything you read at Wik with a grain of salt, and check first before using it in anything.

[Millennium]

Wikipedia has no system of fact-checking, nor any methods to establish accountability or authority, and because of that I would not trust it for anything as important as a school paper or anything. This said, it does tend to be a good place to start searching for information -the extensive cross-references can be particularly helpful for this- and it can lead to clues on where to find more reliable data. It's also usually good enough when you just need to look something up quickly.

To say what Wikipedia is as close as one can get to 'the truth', however, is naive and mistaken. If nothing else, it assumes that nobody has a stake in biasing the data, when in fact all writers do; it's inherent to the writing process. A particularly zealous -or worse, manipulative- user can constantly edit or delete content which does not conform to his views. This can and does happen on Wikipedia, and it's one of the reasons I stay out of the editing process.

[bubblewrap]

All news reporters have an personal adgenda to cram down the throats of the masses.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Millennium

To say what Wikipedia is as close as one can get to 'the truth', however, is naive and mistaken. If nothing else, it assumes that nobody has a stake in biasing the data, when in fact all writers do; it's inherent to the writing process. A particularly zealous -or worse, manipulative- user can constantly edit or delete content which does not conform to his views. This can and does happen on Wikipedia, and it's one of the reasons I stay out of the editing process.

Yes, but that's the way things work in the world. All information is "biased" to a certain degree, and in Wikipedia, you already have numerous sources working on the information which is presented there. You can name me any dictionary or source of information and I can show you how it is at least as "flawed" or prone to contain a bias as Wikipedia.

Of course, the more you cross-reference, the more solid and reliable the information is. Not only is the writing process prone to bias, but it never really "arrives" at anything in the end.

"Knowledge" is always incomplete...an ongoing process.

[Zimphire]

Warung Wik has more of a habit of being wrong more often than most pedias.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Warung Wik has more of a habit of being wrong more often than most pedias.

Not that I have heard, and I know quite a few people who often use it.

But assuming that if there was some blatant misinformation on Wikipedia, a quick cross-checking would immediately reveal the error. Plus I would think that so many different people using it on a daily basis would iron most bad info.

So yeah, looking at various sources is always a good idea.

[Hugi]

Wikipedia is an amazing source of knowledge. I've lost entire weekends, just sitting around reading articles there.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Warung

But assuming that if there was some blatant misinformation on Wikipedia, a quick cross-checking would immediately reveal the error.

Assuming that such cross-checking actually occurs. Quite often, I would wager, it does not.

Plus I would think that so many different people using it on a daily basis would iron most bad info.

This would be true if most people reading it were doing so to check the information thereon, but this simply isn't the case. Most people read it because they don't know the information written in the articles; indeed, that's the entire point of an encyclopedia. This means that most of Wikipedia's readership is incapable of providing the fact checking which is supposed to occur.

It's just like with any other open-source software: very few users are actually contributors. This is not an inherently bad thing, but it does need to be taken into account, and Wikipedia's marketing fails to do that.

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Assuming that such cross-checking actually occurs. Quite often, I would wager, it does not.

The only problem being that I don't give a rat's ass what other encyclopaedias say, since their information is usually (a) not available online, (b) only available online if I pay them a lot of my hard earned money, or (c) are just simply not as extensive as the information in available on Wikipedia.

I consider myself a teeny bit intelligent, and Iook at wikipedia's articles with a critical eye - I trust there are a few other people doing the same.

Of course there will always be idiots among the editors in Wikipedia - just as with other encyclopaedias. The difference being that we can watch the idiots on wikipedia, not on the others.

[y0y0]

If anyone had taken the time to actually read disputed articles on wikipedia, they would have noticed that there is usually a note at the top stating that the article is in dispute, along with a reference to a discussion page where the people who disagree on the article can fight over it until they finally agree on some point, or never, which also happens.

Personally, I am fascinated with the wikipedia. I especially love the huge amount of historical information available there. As hugi does, I have spent days reading through some series of articles there.

Now, obviously with regard to certain topics there will be disputes. Modern politics is an example, but one that I remember seeing is a dispute between Poles and Lithunians on the topic of mass killings by their respective partisans during the second world war. The article is locked with a dispute notice at the top, and the Poles and the Lithuanians are fighting it out on the linked discussion page. Recently, they seem to have even come to an agreement about a neutral statement on the topic.

I imagine that certain people get upset when their personal political/social/religious agenda is not met by some article on wikipedia. Ideally, those people would then start up a discussion about the article on a linked discussion page. But no, sadly, they prefer to bitch about it on a completely unrelated internet forum. To them, I can only say it's their own fault for not participating.

As for accuracy, the more specialised and remote an article is, the less likely it is to be accurate. This is obvious, since less eyes see it. I found an article on a language that I speak that had some errors. I promptly corrected them along with a note on why I did so, and when. ALL changes on wikipedia are noted and logged.

The real problems are when people refuse to compromise on a neutral statement. For example, let's say I start an article on some politician that I don't like, and in that article I use purely subjective terms calling him a completely incompetent baboon. Then, someone who likes that politician comes along, gets upset, deletes all I have written and then rewrites the article subjectively singing the politicians praises. Now, because lots of people visit that page, it ends up getting locked with a dispute notice and I and others will argue about it on the discussion page.

Ideally, we would agree to some neutral statement, using factual information along with a note that there are differing opinions on the politican. Sadly, in reality, if that politician is GW Bush, or J Kerry, given the viciousness of the last election, it is doubtful that the two sides would be able to agree on neutral statements, since both of their supporters tend to only want to see good things written about their hero, and their detractors only want to see bad things written.

However, even a real encyclopedia would not please these people, since it would be too neutral for their tastes.

Life is difficult for those who only want to see the world the way they want it.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Warung

Not that I have heard, and I know quite a few people who often use it.

But assuming that if there was some blatant misinformation on Wikipedia, a quick cross-checking would immediately reveal the error. Plus I would think that so many different people using it on a daily basis would iron most bad info.

So yeah, looking at various sources is always a good idea.

There are Wiki squatters that change things at a daily basis.
They are raving loonies.

[invisibleX]

As long as its not politics or religion I trust Wikipedia to some extent (crossed with one source). For religion, politics, or any other "hot" topic where people are likely to be biased I'll take it with a grain of salt until I get the chance to cross it with multiple sources.

If you just use your brain for five seconds and cross reference the topic there is no issue. I really can not see not cross-referencing ANY source.

[y0y0]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

There are Wiki squatters that change things at a daily basis.
They are raving loonies.

Do you have an example?

[Warung]

Originally Posted by y0y0

Do you have an example?

2nded.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

There are Wiki squatters that change things at a daily basis.
They are raving loonies.

Said Zimphire, in his 28,938th post on MacNN.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Randman

EB is produced by professionals. While errors can and do happen, there is a set of rules for trying to confirm facts.

Interestingly enough, the professionals don't always get it right:

The latest salvo in the Wikipedia-versus-the-world wars: the new edition of the Oxford University Press Dictionary of National Biography -- ringing in at nearly $15,000 -- is riddled with factual errors. If these errors had appeared in Wikipedia entries, its likely that they would have been fixed in short order -- and once they were discovered by the outraged experts quoted in this Observer article, they certainly would be fixed. ¿Quien es mas macho?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...431473,00.html

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Warung

2nded.

I've seen attacks from the same IP address on the "Evolution" article before; things are usually reverted back to the factual article rather quickly.

[PacHead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto...#Online_Forums

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by PacHead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto...#Online_Forums

Hello, Mr. 24.193.154.67

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Hello, Mr. 24.193.154.67

Yep, no big secret there. Roadrunner NYC.

I could be on a proxy of course, or maybe not.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Interestingly enough, the professionals don't always get it right:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...431473,00.html

Even better, Encyclopedia Britannica got schooled by a 12-year-old on basic facts like what country a town is in.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by PacHead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto...#Online_Forums

Great example of why not trust wik.

[Stradlater]

I think, for the most part, you can trust Wiki for everyday information. Full entries are likely to be as accurate as real encyclopedias, much of the time. Use good judgment, and if you're actually doing research for a professional work, Wiki can be a great starting point, providing direction for your research.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Great example of why not trust wik.

The fact that there's a MacNN entry? Or the fact that PH just changed it. If people actually cared about the MacNN entry, they would make it accurate. But this doesn't really matter. The addition is an obvious fallacy, anyhow; no one's going to mistakenly believe every word.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

The fact that there's a MacNN entry? Or the fact that PH just changed it. If people actually cared about the MacNN entry, they would make it accurate. But this doesn't really matter. The addition is an obvious fallacy, anyhow; no one's going to mistakenly believe every word.

Actually I did make it more accurate also.

Before I changed it, it said that the forum update was still underway. It now says it is completed.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

If people actually cared about the MacNN entry, they would make it accurate.

But I guess that's a concept which escapes dimwit conservatives.

quoted for emphasis:

...If these errors had appeared in Wikipedia entries, its likely that they would have been fixed in short order...

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Actually I did make it more accurate also.

Before I changed it, it said that the forum update was still underway. It now says it is completed.

Haha, I noticed that

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Warung

But I guess that's a concept which escapes dimwit conservatives.

Hey that is no way to talk about idjeff.

But is that any worse than being a pompous pretentious lefist?

quoted for emphasis:

Depends on who cares, as you quoted. If no one cares, such information will stay that way for how ever long.

Then there are the vultures that change it back as soon as someone makes it right.

You just really proved yourself wrong there bub.

Good job.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Hey that is no way to talk about idjeff.

I wasn't (just) talking about him.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

But is that any worse than being a pompous pretentious lefist?

You don't seem to think so.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Depends on who cares, as you quoted. If no one cares, such information will stay that way for how ever long.

Which, as far as I can tell, doesn't happen all that often (especially not in regards to crucial information). And just for the record, I never claimed that Wikipedia was completely "error free", but that since it is subject to constant review by a rather large audience, a damn good resource.

But then again:

Do you have an example?

Go right ahead, if Wikipedia really has that many flaws and errors, I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard, even for you, to find at least 10 or 20.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Hey that is no way to talk about idjeff.

But is that any worse than being a pompous pretentious lefist?

Depends on who cares, as you quoted. If no one cares, such information will stay that way for how ever long.

Then there are the vultures that change it back as soon as someone makes it right.

You just really proved yourself wrong there bub.

Good job.

You guys talkin' bout me? I'm fairly balanced in the middle...not too much left and not too much right.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Warung

I wasn't (just) talking about him.

I guess you don't pic up on sarcasm well do you?

You don't seem to think so.

I personally think we are all equally bad.

But then again, I am not a pretentious blow-hard.

Which, as far as I can tell, doesn't happen all that often (especially not in regards to crucial information). And just for the record, I never claimed that Wikipedia was completely "error free", but that since it is subject to constant review by a rather large audience, a damn good resource.

I never said it wasn't a cool page. I just said that the abuse temptation was there, and it did indeed happen.

While I understand a lot of it gets changed when it's caught. What happens to the time between the catching? When all the people went to the site and read it when it was wrong?

Go right ahead, if Wikipedia really has that many flaws and errors, I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard, even for you, to find at least 10 or 20.

I am not going to search Wilipedia to point out what should really be obvious.

Sorry, you can go play that game somewhere else sugar tits.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by idjeff

You guys talkin' bout me? I'm fairly balanced in the middle...not too much left and not too much right.

I wasn't directly. I was being sarcastic. Warung I guess isn't too fast on the uptake.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I guess you don't pic up on sarcasm well do you?

Errr, no, I quite intentionally ignored your little piece of "flamebait" packed in pseudo sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I personally think we are all equally bad.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

But then again, I am not a pretentious blow-hard.

No, you just blow, hard.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I never said it wasn't a cool page. I just said that the abuse temptation was there...

No.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

While I understand a lot of it gets changed when it's caught. What happens to the time between the catching? When all the people went to the site and read it when it was wrong?

Go right ahead, if Wikipedia really has that many flaws and errors, I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard, even for you, to find at least 10 or 20

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I am not going to search Wilipedia to point out what should really be obvious.

QED. Thanks. Next...

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Warung I guess isn't too fast on the uptake.

Speak for yourself.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Warung

Errr, no, I quite intentionally ignored your little piece of "flamebait" packed in pseudo sarcasm.

If you ignored it, then why did you respond to it?

No, you just blow, hard.

Your momma didn't mind. (See I can make lame Jr High jokes just like you!)

No.

No to what? No to the temptation of abuse isn't there? Are you being serious?
You might as well have not responded Warung. This post of yours was pretty useless.

Originally Posted by Warung

Speak for yourself.

Take your own advice.

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I am not going to search Wilipedia to point out what should really be obvious.

Sorry, you can go play that game somewhere else sugar tits.

Nice duck:



(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by eklipse

Nice duck:
(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by eklipse

Nice duck:



(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

Not even a quack.

Again, I am not playing that stupid game.

If you don't believe it, that is on him. Doesn't effect my outlook.

They can be in the dark.

[ZXspectrum]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Not even a quack.

Again, I am not playing that stupid game.

If you don't believe it, that is on him. Doesn't effect my outlook.

They can be in the dark.

easy boy calm down...

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

If you ignored it, then why did you respond to it?

I wrote that I ignored your "flamebait", not that I ignored the post. You're pretty dense, aren't you?

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Your momma didn't mind.

"Your momma"?

løl

Ermmm the 90s just called, - they want their jokes back.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No to what?

Where in your earlier posts did you talk about "temptation"?...You sound like a religious zealot...oh...wait.

Anyway:

Go right ahead, if Wikipedia really has that many flaws and errors, I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard, even for you, to find at least 10 or 20.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by ZXspectrum

easy boy calm down...

Ah you are going around following me pasting that.

How fanboyish of you.

Congratulations.



If you want a pennant too, just email me.