11-30-2006, 07:35 AM | #1 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: currently, College Park, MD
Posts: 18
|
Wikipedia
Alright, so I've recieved several different views on this topic, and I'd like to see what the general consensus/debate on this is. I'll post a general "argument synopsis" for benefit.
Pro-Wiki: Believes that it is a boundless, easy source of information that's easy and accurate, advancing the pursuit of knowledge leaps and bounds. Anti-Wiki: The camp of most responsible teachers, though many are on the fence now. These people believe that since editing can be done by anyone, policing the site is impossible and inaccurate information can be found, thus corrupting the pursuit of knowledge. This is compartmentalization and "nutshelling". I personally believe something in the middle, that Wiki is absolutely incredible and mostly accurate, however unusable in scholarly circles because of that rare error. I think once a way has been found to more efficiently crosscheck the entries, that we could have something great, and it could eventually be utilized in schools. Just one man's opinion, though. Discussion on any aspect of Wikipedia welcome.
__________________
University of Maryland Class of 2007 |
11-30-2006, 11:10 AM | #2 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Depends on the topic.
The quality of information is bound up with the process by which it is produced. I don't know the details around how one becomes an editor and edits a page, though I have heard of several instances of controversy around it. However, if one compares that with the production process of, say, a newspaper, where we know (usually!) that it has been put together by a team of qualified and experienced people (who may or may not abide by a professional code of conduct and/or be qualified to comment), it doesn't rank all that highly. However however, it is a step forward from "what some geek thinks about Star Wars" (Homer Simpson, some episode or other). However however however, one would have greater scepticism the more it mattered or the more uncertainty there was around the topic. I wouldn't choose an anti-hypertensive drug based on what Wiki said, for example; nor would I base my views on the Palestinian situation on it. That said (that's enough howevers) I think Wiki is great and represents the slow maturation of the internet. People who have a problem with it are just rehearsing arguments that trace back to at least the invention of the printing press. "..meaning no harm" was I think my namesake's comments regarding Bilbo teaching Sam how to read and write. Last edited by The Gaffer : 11-30-2006 at 11:14 AM. |
11-30-2006, 11:32 AM | #3 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
I think it's better than traditional sources because everyone can edit and comment on it. Inaccuracies, misinterpretation and conjector exist in all the traditional sources, and they are much harder to change. Once a textbook has been published, it can't be changed until the next printing comes around.
I think it also points out a reality that many historians aren't that willing to acknowledge, that every history ever written about every event is tainted by point of view. You can never remove it completely, but the more eyes or "editors" you put into the process, the closer it will come to objectivity. Wiki is also very young. A few decades under it's belt will do a lot towards weeding out misinformation. As far as schools go. When I did reports, it was a requirement to use mutiple sources. You couldn't just use an article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wiki is a fine source, as long as it is used as one of many.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
11-30-2006, 12:21 PM | #4 |
Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost in the Opera House
Posts: 9,328
|
My problem with it is that it has few boundaries if the editor decides to be a jerk. Also, in some articles, there are pointless "dividers" that are supposed start off a new section of the article. Ends up that it basically is a repeat of the previous info. And some of the "sections" are so worthless and bare, you wonder why they even bothered.
Still, very useful
__________________
ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide |
11-30-2006, 02:31 PM | #5 | |
Alasailon
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: college
Posts: 861
|
Quote:
That's a great observation. Although I am sure whatever personal bias appears on Wiki is still a very narrow point of view held by just a small fraction of the US population, with little or no input from outside the US. I've never cited it for essays or reports but I do use it as a very easy starting point to find other relevant articles from more reliable sources. I do find that Wikipedia is great for just looking up random stuff that you know would never be anywhere else. Like a quick easy history about T.V. shows where a few dedicated fans have spent some time really pulling information together. So bottom line, it's still a bit of a novelty right now. It's growth depends on the dedication of the people that work on it, which will be hard because there are so many people and it's easy to edit and mess around with.
__________________
"and then this hobbit was walking, and then this elf jumped out of a bush and totally flipped out on him while wailing on his guitar." "Anglorfin was tall and straight; his hair was of shining gold, his face fair and young and fearless and full of anger; his eyes were bright and keen, and his voice like music; on his brow sat wisdom, and in his hand was great skill." |
|
12-01-2006, 02:09 AM | #6 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Study done recently showed that wikipedia had the same amount of errors as the encyclopedia britannica.
From here: http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
12-01-2006, 02:39 AM | #7 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Hmm. I like Wikipedia a lot. I found an error in it a week or two ago, when checking the source of one of their quotes from Hans Blix. He wasn't saying what they said he was saying. A friend of mine wrote a detailed paper on Robespierre and afterward checked the Wikipedia article, and rapidly came to the conclusion that it was severely biased.
But Brownjenkins is right that inaccuracies will also easily be found in textbooks. In spite of what problems it has, Wikipedia does spread knowledge and is valuable as a source of easily found and generally accurate information. For that reason, I really like it. If nothing else, it is useful because when you want to use a piece of information it presents, you can find their citation and then go to the direct source itself. That's how I found the UN Partition Plan of Palestine, and got to read the numbers I was interested in finding right from the direct source.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
12-01-2006, 05:04 AM | #8 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Quote:
|
|
12-01-2006, 05:21 AM | #9 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Pish posh. What's a mere 30%. Study does serve my point though.
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
12-01-2006, 06:01 AM | #10 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|
12-01-2006, 06:07 AM | #11 |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Cross-referencing is always the best way to use any source. Once you want to research something a little more controversial on the internet, whoo boy, you better be careful what your sources are. I remember when I was doing a paper on Sellafield, the nuclear facility in the UK, I got so many different studies, one linking all the diseases to the nuclear waste, one refuting all links between the cancers and Sellafield and so on. It's always good to check your source and cros-reference the material, not just only on Wikipedia.
But as starting point Wikipedia is in my opinion very good. It has some advantages over a paper encyclopedia, like continuous updating and no limit on topics due to paper-restraint. The one feature I just love is the way you can link through from one similar subject to another, which is very handy. I love books, but sometimes I do wish some of them came with a ctrl+F function.
__________________
We are not things. |
12-02-2006, 04:11 PM | #12 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 103
|
Quote:
Doesn't matter. Most (high) schools with any sort of website banning program has now banned Wiki.
__________________
"Not only did my encounters with voters confirm the fundamental decency of the American people, they also reminded me that at the core of the American experience are a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes our improbable experiment in democracy work..." Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope |
|
12-03-2006, 09:59 PM | #13 | |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Quote:
|
|
12-04-2006, 05:51 AM | #14 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Quote:
I've done a fair amount of work in recent years on the quality of health web information in my RL job. What follows is a quick synposis, so change channels now if you want to avert a nerd attack. In one project we surveyed in detail the quality of information on over 1,500 pages on 50+ major international websites on a specific clinical topic. In general, we found their error rates to be far lower than reported in Wiki in this study. Virtually none of them had factual errors; the issue was one of bias (e.g. beautiful design, excellent content, just so happens to downplay the side effects of the sponsoring drug company's treatment). Other studies, on health information generally, found around about 20% of pages had an error, as compared to an average of 2.8 per article for Wiki. Hard to make a direct comparison, as these are different outcome measures (the articles are probably different lengths, for example, and it's not clear what they meant by "error"). But I concluded that carefully designed, compiled and maintained resources are better than the "Web 2.0" solution in areas such as health care (where getting the best information can save your life). Here's some references: 1) Berland GK,.et al. Proceed with Caution: A Report on the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. California HealthCare Foundation Report 2001. 2) Hatfield-C. Quality of consumer drug information provided by four Web sites. American Journal of Health System Pharmacy, 1999;56:2308-11. 3) Risk A, Petersen C. Health Information on the Internet: Quality Issues and International Initiatives. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002; 287, 2713-2715. These are old studies however, and things are better now, as it emerged in our review. |
|
12-04-2006, 11:04 AM | #15 |
protector of orphaned rabbits
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Kalamazoo... yes, its a real place!
Posts: 1,236
|
i've used wiki on loads of papers. but i go to a *****y school, so no one really cares. i've actually used them and gotten a/b's . but i think i can trust the topics im reading mostly beacuse they are about things like 924 Gilman Street (home of operation ivy's last show and coincidentally Green Day's first show - under the name 'green day')
the whole punk culture is based on collectives and co-ops and pooling together what little we've all got to make something work right. even the gilman itself is a collective. so i completely support wikipedia in that , not only have i gotten good grades from it, but it as a communal pooling of individual's knowlege for the sake of knowlege. excuse the spelling/grammatical errors, im baked. EDIT: meh, to be historically correct, i should say modern punk culture.
__________________
Last edited by LuthienTinuviel : 12-04-2006 at 11:06 AM. |
12-06-2006, 08:48 PM | #16 |
Elf Lady
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the lands where mountains are but a fairytale
Posts: 8,588
|
In my high school I was allowed to use wikipedia as a source as long as it was one of several sources.
However because I know there may be mistakes in it I would never use wikipedia and wikipedia alone as a source for a paper. Come to think of it, I used wikipedia for some of my universitypapers as well and noone ever complained to me about it or said that I shouldn't do that. I guess in the Netherlands they don't really care too much about the sources as long as the result is okay. |
12-07-2006, 05:18 AM | #17 |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Out of curiosty, which one do you use, the main English one, or the wikipedia.nl?
__________________
We are not things. |
12-07-2006, 06:11 AM | #18 |
Elf Lady
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the lands where mountains are but a fairytale
Posts: 8,588
|
Both actually because sometimes one has more information then the other. It also depends on the subject.
|
12-07-2006, 10:33 AM | #19 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Free, happy, drunk and sincere
Posts: 346
|
Wiki is a joke!
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNC_Australia Its a post a mate of mine made on Wiki. Read it, deoesn't it sound professional? The problem is that PNC stands for P@@sed naked C###s, and all they do is run naked through girls schools and millitary instillations. History must come from history, noit from what someone heard from someone else's cousin around the camp fire. All it would take is for someone to say that Hitler wasn't really that bad, and for them to convince one other person, and we're at the races. Leave history to the historians.
__________________
Audaces fortuna juvat |
12-07-2006, 10:26 PM | #20 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Wikipedia has many well-written articles, and many articles that are total crap. The crap articles will either get deleted or improved - this is the hope, anyway.
I have two problems with Wikipedia. One is this: Quote:
My Dad once read an encyclopedia of British Columbia and found about eleven errors. Mistakes will happen in all publications of knowledge. The problem with Wikipedia is that there is a lot more articles in their non-science articles, and yet people take is as unvarnished fact by many people. Wikipedia is not peer reviewed by experts on the article in question, it's "peer reviewed" by any member of Wikipedia who have an interest in the subject. Often those people know a great deal about the subject, but it's not rigorous like the traditional method of evaluation articles is.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homosexual marriage II | klatukatt | General Messages | 736 | 05-15-2013 01:15 PM |
What makes you thankful to live in a free country? | jerseydevil | General Messages | 174 | 03-12-2005 07:27 PM |