Wikipedia

**Professor** · 11-01-2007, 01:46 PM

So rather than hijack other threads...... Wikipedia: valid source of fact or pure crap? Discuss.

Personally my vote is for pure crap. Amusing, but not a valid source. Anyone else chuckle every time it is cited to validate an argument?

**MakersTeleMark** · 11-01-2007, 01:48 PM

About as reliable as Google.

**wi3dzmin** · 11-01-2007, 01:51 PM

Collective knowledge vs. truth... you decide.

What's a valid source?

**dre66** · 11-01-2007, 01:51 PM

wikipedia is a good starting point if you know absolutely nothing about a topic. that being said it isn't a reliable scholarly source, although occasionally reliable sources are cited at the bottom of articles.

**Odin** · 11-01-2007, 02:04 PM

Complete crap.

With occaisionally valid points of crap.

**lemon boy** · 11-01-2007, 02:11 PM

Wikipedia is….an awesome encyclopedia….which is to say a great way to get a basic flavor for just about any topic but cannot hope to substitute for real expertise.

**tromano** · 11-01-2007, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by lemon boy

Wikipedia is….an awesome encyclopedia….which is to say a great way to get a basic flavor for just about any topic but cannot hope to substitute for real expertise.

+1

234567

**Wibby** · 11-01-2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by dre66

wikipedia is a good starting point if you know absolutely nothing about a topic. that being said it isn't a reliable scholarly source, although occasionally reliable sources are cited at the bottom of articles.

agreed...

**Odin** · 11-01-2007, 02:31 PM

Wikipedia (due to member editing) can, factually be completely incorrect (in so much as facts are either correct or incorrect) and so, therefore, cannot be stated as a good starting point due to possible (intentional) mistakes, misinformation, or skullduggery.

That said it is vastly entertaining.

It is also entertaining to check out the edit page of candidates during an election year and see how many times slander or misinformation has been added and deleted.

**orange** · 11-01-2007, 02:43 PM

"Some English Research Group did a study, for every one mistake in Wikipedia there were three in the latest issue of Encyclopedia Britanica."

Actually, that is backwards and wrong...ish

Same number of serious errors, Wikipedia had more minor errors.

See Spats post further down.

**soul_skier** · 11-01-2007, 02:47 PM

the university of Vermont just sent out a big memo saying that it was not a valid source and could not be used in citations, however, when it comes to learning a lot of big picture background and general info quickly, it is one of the best/easiest ways.

**RShea** · 11-01-2007, 02:56 PM

Over all I would agree that it is a good start- wealth of info. However any one entry since it can be edited and changed any time by anyone could be pure garbage. Eventually it gets corrected but as reliable or more than any encyclopedia by the major companies- they have errors too.

**neck beard** · 11-01-2007, 03:17 PM

I recently read every Wikipedia article relating to the American-Japan WWII conflicts, ending with the building and testing of the bombing, signing of the surrender etc.

Was it all amusing crap or am I a little bit smarter now?

**Spats** · 11-01-2007, 03:19 PM

According to the Nature study, done in 2005, Wikipedia and the Britannica committed an equal number of serious errors, and Wikipedia committed roughly 33% more minor errors than the Britannica.

http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

The idea that Wikipedia can be biased, but "mainstream" sources somehow cannot, is laughable. Both are edited by people with personal or organizational biases. The difference is that Wikipedia's biases are somewhat random and tend to cancel each other out in the long term.

I suspect that most of the errors in Wikipedia are politically motivated edits on controversial subjects, or politically motivated edits to change the attribution of an important or interesting discovery. Keep this in mind and you'll be OK.

**orange** · 11-01-2007, 03:53 PM

I use Wikipedia for getting the "gist" of things and a basic understanding. If I want to learn more, I go to a book or reference source.

**jon turner** · 11-01-2007, 04:11 PM

It can be good for basic science information. I have my high school kids use it as a resource when they do research on a topic. I would consider it similar to a mainstream mass-media magazine (i.e. time, scientific american, etc).

But for true research (advanced high school, college, and beyond) and more in depth analysis, you should use professional or scholarly peer-reviewed journals (i.e. nature, ecology, science, etc.) and similar resources.

In the end you should never use just one resource for research, but a variety of different types of sources. So, even if Wikipedia has some errors, using it as a supplement with other sources should help counter that.

**Garrett** · 11-01-2007, 04:34 PM

Spats is right on. If you look up "Ayn Rand" or "Ron Paul" or "Hitler" you'll find the article is locked from n00b edits, and if you look through the talk page history you'll find the product has gone through a more thorough review than a "real" encyclopedia article would have. This doesn't mean the final product is high quality: often controversial portions of topics are simply left out because consensus cannot be reached.

If you look up some lesser known politician, chances are much better that the article will be bullshit. Topics out of the spotlight can be screwed with much easier than obvious targets. Of course, 99% of this stuff just would not be in a traditional encyclopedia...so something is IMO much better than nothing as long as you are someone with a fairly well calibrated BS meter.

Topics in the sciences outside of the politically charged stuff are typically very well covered, with far better (and more up to date!) references than your traditional encyclopedia. When you start getting into more esoteric topics you'll find pages with errors and lacking in references...usually because an expert hasn't gotten to the topic yet. For instance, lots of enginerding topics leave a lot to be desired, but they were probably written by students like me...eventually an expert will provide the subject with the attention it needs. Even the clearly lacking articles can be a great help when you just want to know WTF a dilatant is when you've only ever heard it referred to as a STF.

All this said, if you use an encyclopedia by itself as a reference, you are a fucking moron. Wikipedia or otherwise. Really the most useful sections of your typical article from a research standpoint are the bibliographical sections.

The "Wikipedia is crap" people are usually a particular brand of retard that wouldn't know how to use a library if it crawled up their ass and shat a card catalog.

**FrozenKiwi** · 11-01-2007, 04:45 PM

From what I use wikipedia for I find it not crap in the slightest bit, its actually better than going to a book and sifting though pages of crap when you can just use wikipedia to search for the physics equation or proof for you assignments. No noob is going to change a second degree partial differental equation or fuck round with stuff in Bra-Ket notation. Oh yea im a nerd!

**supermodel159** · 11-01-2007, 05:11 PM

Little known fact....Wiki has 5 employees!

**skiing-in-jackson** · 11-01-2007, 06:48 PM

An article in the Wall Street Journal found that Wikipedia had less errors per thousand entries than Encyclopedia Britannica.

I'm not in school, so it really doesn't matter to me. I've found that Wikipedia makes a nice homepage.

I'll try to find the journal article & edit this post.

**RootSkier** · 11-01-2007, 09:08 PM

Wikipedia is awesome. TGR is awesome.

Would I stake my reputation on things gleaned from either? Fuck no.

**Kevo** · 11-01-2007, 10:49 PM

There was a report that came out last year (showed to a class I was in by the prof) that said that Wikipedia was about as accurate as any other encyclopedia. While I don't think it is yet acceptable to quote wikipedia as a scholarly source, in my book it is as good or better than most online news sources in accuracy/quality of content.

**marshalolson** · 11-01-2007, 10:56 PM

ask yourself: how much mainstream media as a whole do you trust?

i don't see wikipedia as being any worse than any other mainstream source of information, and in general better than most widely accepted news sources (ie: fox news).

at least there is a possibility of an equal representation of contrasting views.

edit: that said, would i ever cite it? fuck no.

**couloirman** · 11-01-2007, 11:06 PM

Gosey and I use wikipedia to do our biochem group homework assignments. We got 29/25 on the last one and got more than half the answers from there. Like someone said before, if you have a good BS meter, than its a good source. If you'll buy a ketchup popsicle from a woman in white gloves, ehhhh...... Oh wait its gotta be your bull. Ok, now Im rambling. Someone should either take the scotch, or the keboard away from me before I get myself into trouble...

**truth** · 11-02-2007, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by skiing-in-jackson

An article in the Wall Street Journal found that Wikipedia had less errors per thousand entries than Encyclopedia Britannica.

I'm not in school, so it really doesn't matter to me. I've found that Wikipedia makes a nice homepage.

I'll try to find the journal article & edit this post.

This thread on TGR found that this fact had been reported three times in three forms in this thread. This confirms that you're a dumber bunch of douchenozzles as a collective than as individuals. I know there is no factual basis for that but it I found it on wiki so it must be true.