Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Nope. No matter which source you cite, someone else will question it (and you by extension).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can we all agree about wikipedia?
- Thread starter HiddenDjinn
- Start date
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
The main problems with Wikipedia are that it is not professionally edited, and many of its pages contain factual errors or content biased by some person or group with an axe to grind. The articles on less obscure subjects do tend to be accurate and well-written, and there is a process for correcting content. Also, Wikipedia differs from traditional encyclopedias in that it is more likely to have timely information on very obscure topics. So I usually turn to it first when I want to learn about a new topic or refresh my memory on a known topic. At present, it is probably the most popular reference tool on the planet. It is far more influential than Britannica.
I've started and written a few articles for Wikipedia, so I have had some experience with the problem of content management. Businesses tend to monitor what Wikipedia says about them closely, and there are a lot of people out there who try to use it as a marketing tool. In the case of one article that I was the chief author on, an individual was doggedly determined to promote his business services with respect that that topic--an article on a type of technical writing. I got into something of an editing war with him, where I would remove his promotional material and he would restore it. That went on for quite a while before I could get Wikipedia to put an end to it. Hence, you have to be very careful about the accuracy and objectivity of the material that you find in Wikipedia.
When in doubt, check the discussion pages. Sometimes there is more interesting material to be found in the debates that go on there.
I've started and written a few articles for Wikipedia, so I have had some experience with the problem of content management. Businesses tend to monitor what Wikipedia says about them closely, and there are a lot of people out there who try to use it as a marketing tool. In the case of one article that I was the chief author on, an individual was doggedly determined to promote his business services with respect that that topic--an article on a type of technical writing. I got into something of an editing war with him, where I would remove his promotional material and he would restore it. That went on for quite a while before I could get Wikipedia to put an end to it. Hence, you have to be very careful about the accuracy and objectivity of the material that you find in Wikipedia.
When in doubt, check the discussion pages. Sometimes there is more interesting material to be found in the debates that go on there.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
You're probably right, I never did fully appreciate the intricacy and obvious great importance of proper referencing. At least that's what my tutors tell me anyway.
outhouse
Atheistically
I agree
dont like something on wiki, if you have valid sources it can be changed
ive seen nutters try and change wiki to meet their agenda and they get slapped down every time
Yeah, it's a great feature...one which I check when I suspect controversy.
I think wikipedia is a great resource as long one is aware of what it is. Some articles are written by experts, and some are not. Larger, more popular ones tend to be reasonably well-written. A lot of the problematic ones are at least shown to be problematic, with various "citation needed" tags and so forth, bringing problems to the readers attention. It is updated quickly, and contains articles on things other encyclopedias can't include.
Changes to the content are public, and one of the most useful things is that most articles have sources that you can go to. So it serves as a good tool as a first reference which can provide an overview and lead to other references.
Changes to the content are public, and one of the most useful things is that most articles have sources that you can go to. So it serves as a good tool as a first reference which can provide an overview and lead to other references.
rojse
RF Addict
Wikipedia is great, providing that you use it in the right manner. The pages are usually reasonably accurate, pages are updated quite frequently to meet with new information, most of the wiki pages are easy to understand for a layman, and most factual-based pages cite their sources if you need to know where information comes from. It's a good starting point, and very good to go to if you are only after basic knowledge.
I would be particularly interested in seeing some examples of the pages on Wikipedia that you consider to be biased.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
The only real problem with Wikipedia is that not all sources cited are peer-reviewed.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Here is the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia's accuracy: Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See? It's fine!
Ok, so here are some others too: Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts and BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test
See? It's fine!
Ok, so here are some others too: Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts and BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test
Alceste
Vagabond
And that is not a problem with commercial encyclopedias? I have never seen any references in a commercial encyclopedia, let alone peer-reviewed references.
I prefer wikipedia. I have always been suspicious of the information conveyed by the likes of Britannica. I find the articles dry, watered-down, uninspired, and the factual claims difficult to verify. I am acutely aware that they are written by fallible human beings and it seems clear that 99% of the time the people who write the articles have little (if any) interest in the subject at hand. A good article should convey to the reader some sense of why anybody in their right mind would be interested in the information contained therein. Commercial encyclopedia articles always fail to do this (it's as if it's a matter of professional pride), and seeing as their writers' unreferenced factual claims are exactly as suspect to me as the unreferenced factual claims of laymen and amateurs, that leaves me no reason at all to refer to them.
croak
Trickster
Miniara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are many worse than this one, but I'm too lazy to dig them up.
Talk:Sarah Palin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Great way to pass the time.
Talk:Sarah Palin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Great way to pass the time.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I think it is fine if the article is properly cited. I wouldn't use it as definitive proof of something but I wouldn't use any one thing as definitive proof of anything. Any good research compares data from multiple sources. However, I would consider wikipedia to much less biased than a published encyclopedia like britanica or something similar. Commercial encyclopedias are put together by a group or organization who decides what should go in and then they are filtered by publishers before they reach us. Wikipedia is unfiltered and the whole world can decide what is factual or not. As long as it has the proper citations and sources than it is probably reliable, but as I said, to gather reliable data we should compare multiple sources.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Certainly, just as soon as we can find one less biased and inaccurate than the Wiki.
Good luck with that.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
The thing is, Wikipedia usually has decent articles on well established stuff, like explanations of the Theory of Evolution, Relativity or similar, and it can serve as a fair introduction to those not familiar with said topics.
I'm not terribly surprised if articles about, say, Sarah Palin sometimes falls victim to pranksters and vandalism, seeing as she sort of put herself up to be pranked in oh so many ways, although, of course, as someone who believes information should be as accurate as possible, I don't condone such things.
Usually though, such articles get closed down rather quickly and are removed from public editing, so it's not a lasting problem.
I'm not terribly surprised if articles about, say, Sarah Palin sometimes falls victim to pranksters and vandalism, seeing as she sort of put herself up to be pranked in oh so many ways, although, of course, as someone who believes information should be as accurate as possible, I don't condone such things.
Usually though, such articles get closed down rather quickly and are removed from public editing, so it's not a lasting problem.
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
I agree, wikipedia is not a reliable source. It can be edited for one, and two the references certain articles that are used can be accessed. I think Wikipedia is for people who are lazy especially when it comes to scientific information. I notice a lot of people use wikipedia to back their scientific claims up.....hogwash!
McBell
Unbound
Compared to what?
Please be so kind as to present to the thread an encyclopedia that is not biased.
Wikipedia is a great place to start when researching something.
Please note I said a great place to START.
Problem is that far to many people use wikipedia and go no further.
If someone uses a wiki page to back up their claims then go edit the page with the verified correct information.
Which leads to the question: who is the more lazy?
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
If I am going to discuss a scientific claim, let's say discussing zygominibytes that affect the cardiovascular system like everyone else I will state an introduction (as to why I believe zygominibytes needs immediate vaccination-if such exists) followed by my premise. Now someone who is against vaccinations may argue how certain experimental vaccines for zygominibytes are ineffective using a wikipedia. Now, me using a peer-reviewed medical article I would assume trumps the wikipedia source since:
A) Peer-Reviewed scientific articles from medical or any other scientific journal aren't easily accessible and most have.already went through a process of editing.
B) Scientific Journals or other research journals are typically written by Ph.D. certified or by masters/doctoral students. With wikipedia sources may come from anecdotal articles on the web.
C) Real research articles (especially a psychology, physics or any other scientific work) comes with a section that shows mathematical work (normally called a results section) which shows you how they found their results
With Wikipedia, it takes the guesswork out of debating. Me going back and changing something I find wrong on Wikipedia is a waste of time since, after be someone too, can edit my information.
lol. If you find errors... fix them. hee hee.