Can you give some concrete examples where wiki is wrong?
I think it is or will be the best source of information as it develops and evolves incontine.
Wiki, the undisputed source of all knowledge...
- Thread starter Randwolf
- Start date
Can you give some concrete examples where wiki is wrong?
I think it is or will be the best source of information as it develops and evolves incontine.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Kernl Sandrs
Registered Senior Member
Well a lot of it is accurate. Trivial things like Lincoln's birthday, for example. I don't think there's too many people out there surfing the wiki editing it hoping you'll happen upon some bad information. They have people who check what you edit. ( I once changed his birthday to 1935, they disliked that, heh) And if you came upon some incorrect information, couldn't you just change it and make it right?
It holds a lot of promise.
It holds a lot of promise.
You are right to be skeptical of information you get not only from the internet but also from cable news, radio, and the written press. And that is why is is important for each of us to vett our sources.
I find Wikipedia generally a very reliable source of information. I have found problems with correctness from time to time. But overall it is pretty good and generally very reliable. Just because it may appear to you to be contradictory, does not mean it is in fact contradictory. Some of the material on Wikipedia is pretty technical and sometimes the authors may not explain it well enough for all to understand. Communicating is a constant challenge I think for all of us. We all make assumptions about our readers and sometimes those assumptions are just not true. Some readers intrepret our writting differently from how the words were intended. That is not an indictment of the reader or the writer. It is just a fact of life.
You should cross reference information with other independent sources, not sources with known biases like Fox News, Clear Channel Communications etc. And while I do not often agree with you Baron. I believe you to be an honest and courageous man. So please keep looking for the truth and continue learning. We are all in the same boat, and we should all continue to seek truth and continue learning.
Last edited:
Not at all, I voted... Thanks...
I would like to comment on Stryder's post in your thread:
I can see some merit to this but I am curious at what level you feel the requirement should be enforced. Surely a report assigned in fourth grade would accept a quote from Wiki, no?
While such may be totally inappropriate at University level, I think even then at least part of the motivation would be to help students "learn to learn". The veracity of Wiki is questionable of course, and perhaps should be restricted on that basis alone (at this level), but people need to learn how to properly trace tertiary to secondary to primary, regardless of where you obtain information. (IMHO) Not to mention instilling a healthy dose of skepticism, which wouldn't be unhelpful to some of our fellow posters.
Personally, I believe someone should be held accountable for their choice of citations without the necessity of an outright ban on Wiki - if the facts are correct and sourced in the footnotes, well... As someone else mentioned, not all of Wiki is "wrong". I can dig up garbage anywhere - newspapers, TV, books (both "real" and "vanity published"), and, occasionally, even white papers. To completely bar Wiki seems a bit of an overkill.
Firstly, the OP is incorrect: Wikipedia is not a source of knowledge, but a resource, or reference.
Secondly, Wikipedia's content is reportage, and as such can be considered, at best, as a tertiary source.
That being said, it's a useful place to start an investigation, to be sure, but hardly sufficient enough to stand on its own (editable) legs.
p.s.
Why is this in EM&J??
Secondly, Wikipedia's content is reportage, and as such can be considered, at best, as a tertiary source.
That being said, it's a useful place to start an investigation, to be sure, but hardly sufficient enough to stand on its own (editable) legs.
p.s.
Why is this in EM&J??
You are right, sir. I should have checked Wiki for the correct usage.
Thank you. Your opinion is noted. Perhaps you missed the poll Enmos set up for just this sort of comment.
Depends on what you are investigating.
The obvious answer would be that I screwed up, the intent was to post in Free Thoughts. It is also odd that Tiassa didn't catch it, being that he is a participant in this thread. So, I have no idea really - perhaps a few too many pints that day? Anyone that would like to move it is welcome to do so...
Is less than what I learned in college but more than I remember.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics
Often helped me with the formula.
It wasn't opinion, but fact.
Reportage is always, at best, considered a tertiary source.
True enough. I was assuming that one would be investigating anything but the most simple or rudimentary things.
Actually I wasn't being flippant; I thought perhaps I'd missed something.
It would be pretty easy to translate into an ethical subject; something along the lines of source credibility, bona fides, or professional testimony and how the nature of Wikipedia throws all these into question.
Actually, I think it's a very interesting ethical topic...
That's obviously dependent on the Tutor and of course Parent, to be honest though if a Child isn't taught at an early age how to "trace tertiary" then they are going to base alot of things on assumptions and not "test" information where they can with other sources.
I wouldn't suggest barring the site, I would just suggest using it to try and identify where sources are rather than seeing it as a source. I suppose you can say it should be a reference of sources rather than a source.
Hmmmm... Semantics - such fun.
So it would appear that "Reportage is always, at best, considered a tertiary source" is at least debatable, according to my interpretation of the definition from merriam-webster. Please help me out here...
Additionally, I take issue with your assertion that "Secondly, Wikipedia's content is reportage..." - that, my friend is an opinion. Doesn't necessarily mean that your opinion is wrong, but it is most definitely an opinion. Unless you would care to support that assertion with facts. It would be ironic indeed if you were to cite the second reportage definition, "2 : writing intended to give an account of observed or documented events", to back up your position. That would seem to indicate that all " written sources" are communicated via reportage. Interesting "loop: see loop"...
Yes, there is that... Or, perhaps if one was to read the OP carefully, one would note that you merely repeated the following:
and then we have:..glaucon said:
again from the OP.
I respect you glaucon, and enjoy reading your posts. Especially those involving philosophy. However, I'm wondering just how carefully you read the OP here. Surely you can understand my consternation...
Didn't mean to imply that you were. I do find questioning why the OP is in EM&J by someone who characterizes that same post as "Actually, I think it's a very interesting ethical topic..." potentially disingenuous, but I will take you at your word. I'd like to see your insight(s) and "[translation of this topic] into an ethical subject; something along the lines of source credibility, bona fides, or professional testimony and how the nature of Wikipedia throws all these into question." I welcome your comments...
That "early age" was precisely what I was questioning. It will obviously vary by child, but what is your opinion on when (approximately) a child should be required to step beyond Wiki? I am referring specifically to Wiki, not some generalized "Don't believe everything you read" admonition.
My intent was to contest the (apparently) already existing ban as regards Wiki for "Academic Papers" that you referred to previously. Are you for or against barring Wiki in that environment, provided proper (yes, I'm using the word loosely here) citations are provided? If so, why?
Indeed. I love it.
I'll try to clarify what I've been getting at.
Of course, it all depends on which particular accepted Style Guide one refers to, but generally, MLA and APA are always acceptable:
MLA
P, S, T Breakdown
See above.
In particular, note how "Encyclopedia" is listed under Tertiary. Clearly, Wiki would qualify as an encyclopedia...
As for the strange loop on reportage... yes, you've got me there. I should have been more precise in my word choice.
Fair is fair.
I can indeed understand.
Apparently I've misunderstood. I was (obviously now..) merely rewording what was in the OP, but it seemed to me that you were using these in defense of the notion that Wikipedia can be anything beyond a Tertiary source...
Or perhaps I'm confused on terminology.
I readily admit all of the above, but beyond the scope of a "general knowledge starting point" (to squash mutually accepted terminologies) I fail to see how we can say that Wiki is a reliable (re)source of knowledge.
I must be having a bad brain day. My apologies.
I was making an admission of preemptive judgment.
I should have said: "Actually, now that I've given it the thought it was due, I think it's a very interesting ethical topic... "
mea culpa
In all seriousness.
The problem with the content is anything can be posted to it currently, as it requires people to access the changes to identify anything rogue. (One time I surfed to a legitimate page where someone thought sticking a picture of their penis on there was citation. Small things please small minds)
In an academic environment part of the Coursework, the process of proving that you are capable and have learnt something of the topic you are dealing with is to prove that you can pull all the information together and draw a conclusion of sorts. Wiki tends to allow for a quick unchecked return and students nowadays to my knowledge are getting lazy. (I do not mean that offensively, it's more that there is so much going on in the world and so little time to handle everything that to quickly "plagurise" someone elses work is becoming all too commonplace)