Wikipedia as a source?

[Revoltingest]

Those providers can be anyone, you, me, trump the pope, the junky down the street. Anyone with an opinion can sign up as a wikipedia contributor / editor add or change any article they want.

In the past it was thick with misinformation. Now the plan is to check any new/updated wiki. This can take time, and is sometimes missed.

My view, check the references at the end of the article and take wikipedia with as much salt as needed.

Heres the joining page for anyone who feels they can contribute
Join Wikipedia

Even scholarly (whatever that is) works are littered with error & agenda.
And since they're written by an individual rather than a group, they're
singular in perspective. Peer review is also inconsistent.
My favorite example was a Scientific American article about probability
of a baby's gender based upon gender & birth order. The conclusion
struck me as wrong. Sure enuf, the author made a math error...one so
simple & basic that even I could find it. (And remember that I've no
PhD or high IQ.)
Wikipedia has not just bozos like me, but also experts scouring it for
errors, with fixes quickly applied. Ain't nobody perfect....but useful
is good enuf for me.

 

[Thief]

Even scholarly (whatever that is) works are littered with error & agenda.
And since they're written by an individual rather than a group, they're
singular in perspective. Peer review is also inconsistent.
My favorite example was a Scientific American article about probability
of a baby's gender based upon gender & birth order. The conclusion
struck me as wrong. Sure enuf, the author made a math error...one so
simple & basic that even I could find it. (And remember that I've no
PhD or high IQ.)
Wikipedia has not just bozos like me, but also experts scouring it for
errors, with fixes quickly applied.

but did you join Wiki and undo the error

you're as good as anyone

hehehehehe

 

[Revoltingest]

but did you join Wiki and undo the error

you're as good as anyone

hehehehehe

I don't recall ever editing Wikipedia.
But I have done a little on Conservapedia.
(Yes, they even trusted an atheist to do it.)

 

[Neutral Name]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

Wikipedia can be factual. One needs to check the references at the bottom of each article to determine that they are accurate and accurately stated in the article.

 

[Neutral Name]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

Wikipedia can be factual. One needs to check the references at the bottom of each article to determine that they are accurate and accurately stated in the article.

 

[ChristineM]

Even scholarly (whatever that is) works are littered with error & agenda.
And since they're written by an individual rather than a group, they're
singular in perspective. Peer review is also inconsistent.
My favorite example was a Scientific American article about probability
of a baby's gender based upon gender & birth order. The conclusion
struck me as wrong. Sure enuf, the author made a math error...one so
simple & basic that even I could find it. (And remember that I've no
PhD or high IQ.)
Wikipedia has not just bozos like me, but also experts scouring it for
errors, with fixes quickly applied. Ain't nobody perfect....but useful
is good enuf for me.

Fixes are not always quickly applied, far from it.

The biography of Eric van Viele, an actor in the 1922 horror film Nosferatu was totally fictitious, it was created in 2006 and only deleted 2 weeks ago.

The game of bont, a ball game played in france was deleted earlier this year after more than 12 years on Wikipedia, reason, the game does not exist

The percentage of errors is reducing but they still exist.

Useful, yes. But rely on it at your peril

 

[Revoltingest]

Fixes are not always quickly applied, far from it.

That Scientific American article was never fixed.
(Printed media have that problem.)

The biography of Eric van Viele, an actor in the 1922 horror film Nosferatu was totally fictitious, it was created in 2006 and only deleted 2 weeks ago.

I'll bet that I can find scholarlly articles showing that
lead isn't a neurotoxin or that smoking is safe.

The game of bont, a ball game played in france was deleted earlier this year after more than 12 years on Wikipedia, reason, the game does not exist

The percentage of errors is reducing but they still exist.

Useful, yes. But rely on it at your peril

Is there any source which doesn't deserve skepticism?
If you want summarized info quickly, where do you go?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

It's certainly not academic. I consider Wikipedia a fair introduction to things for the layman for the most part taken with a little bit of salt , as not every contributor to wiki is an expert on the subject in question.

 

[ChristineM]

That Scientific American article was never fixed.
(Printed media have that problem.)

I'll bet that I can find scholarlly articles showing that
lead isn't a neurotoxin or that smoking is safe.

Is there any source which doesn't deserve skepticism?
If you want summarized info quickly, where do you go?

The thread is not on other printed media but Wikipedia. A

And two wrongs don't make a right.

I go to google scholar.

 

[Revoltingest]

And two wrongs don't make a right.

None of us would ever claim so.
But to criticize & dismiss Wikipedia as a flawed quick resource cannot
fairly be done in a vacuum. It must be compared with alternatives.
If it is the most useful of all, then dismissal lacks cromulence.

I go to google scholar.

Comparing it to Wikipedia...
- How accessible?
- Error rate?
- Breadth of coverage?
- Update rate?
- Bias vs objectivity? <-- An issue with Google's involvement.
- Sources listed?

 

[ChristineM]

None of us would ever claim so.
But to criticize & dismiss Wikipedia as a flawed quick resource cannot
fairly be done in a vacuum. It must be compared with alternatives.
If it is the most useful of all, then dismissal lacks cromulence.

Comparing it to Wikipedia...
- How accessible?
- Error rate?
- Breadth of coverage?
- Update rate?
- Bias vs objectivity? <-- An issue with Google's involvement.
- Sources listed?

I am pretty sure i was truthful in stating anyone can edit... I even provided a join wikipedia link.

i am pretty sure i dismiss it, in fact my precise words were

My view, check the references at the end of the article and take wikipedia with as much salt as

 

[Revoltingest]

I am pretty sure i was truthful in stating anyone can edit... I even provided a join wikipedia link.

i am pretty sure i didn't dismiss it, in fact my precise words were

I added the underlined word so that it meant what I wanted to respond to.
But as I recall, Wikipedia can place limitations on who can & can't edit some articles.
(This prevents the Pacific NW Arboreal Octopus from showing up under "Darwin".)

My complaints also included the OP.
But for you, the proffered alternative to
Wikipedia must be demonstrably better.
How is it?

 

[dybmh]

Criticizing usage of Wikipedia is only relevant in a debate where additional sources are requested and those requests are literally ignored.

Wikipedia is useful as an initial source to confirm that the claim or definition of a term is not completely made-up.

 

[Enoch07]

Well, that's one way to extend a conversation and raise the temperature level.

Only for people just looking to argue for p00ps and giggles. Arguing is not debating though.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

It might interest you to reflect on how one of the first Encyclopedias was written...that of Denis Diderot...or indeed how all such works are written. I can cite you articles from such well-respected sources as the Encyclopedia Britannica which would strain credulity. You see, all of them, every single one, are written by humans who are believed to be (or believe themselves to be) authorities. And yes, while it's great to cite from "the original sources," is there any reason to suspect that those were any different?

Want an example? Here's one from the third edition on the word "Negro" from the 1798 Britannica: "Negro, homo pelli nigra, a name given to a variety of the human species, who are entirely black are found in the Torrid Zone, especially in that part of Africa which lies within the Tropics. In the complexion of the Negro we meet with various shades; but they likewise differ far from other men in all the features of their face, round cheeks, high cheek-bones, a forehead somewhat elevated, a short, broad, flat nose, thick lips, small ears, ugliness, and irregularity of shape, characterise their external appearance. The Negro women have their loins greatly depressed, and very large buttocks, which give the back the shape of a saddle. Vices the most notorious seem to be the portion of this unhappy race; idleness, treachery, revenge, cruelty, impudence, stealing, lying profanity, debauchery, nastiness and intemperance, are said to have extinguished the principles of natural law...."

Never mind, I won't go on.

But I point out that Wiki is just the same, in no wise different than Diderot's or Britannica's encyclopedias.

 

[Martin]

I think Wiki is OK, providing you don't regard it as authoritative.
It's handy for getting an idea of what something is, but the quality can be variable.

 

[Jim]

I think Wiki is OK, providing you don't regard it as authoritative.
It's handy for getting an idea of what something is, but the quality can be variable.

That says everything that I would want to say.

 

[dianaiad]

So are we posting here in an academic journal?

I understand the limits of any encyclopedia and if you want to drill down into the specifics and such you need to go further than an encyclopedia, but I see wikipedia as an immensely valuable resource. It is full of sincere peer reviewed content. I have used it extensively and never found it or any other crowd sourced wiki to be generally deceitful or misleading.

Nor have I argued with the idea that is is an immensely valuable resource. Indeed, I have flat out SAID that it is a valuable resource. I have told y'all that I actually taught people how best to use it...I wouldn't have done that if I did not think it was a valuable resource.

Just don't cite it as a primary resource. What is so hard to understand about that?

Use Wikipedia. Their articles are generally pretty good. What's more important is that they (the really good ones) use a LOT of sources and footnotes showing where the author gets his info. So scroll down, check out the resources and cite them in any scholastic or scientific paper.

If you don't, you WILL be ridiculed for being lazy. And you will have deserved it.

 

[dianaiad]

Some 'scholars' have incredibly colored glasses. I think it best to try to read between the lines of all that you read. Always keeop in mind whether or not the writer has an agenda.

Oh, they all do. Have their own agendas, that is.

 

[dianaiad]

Those providers can be anyone, you, me, trump the pope, the junky down the street. Anyone with an opinion can sign up as a wikipedia contributor / editor add or change any article they want.

In the past it was thick with misinformation. Now the plan is to check any new/updated wiki. This can take time, and is sometimes missed.

My view, check the references at the end of the article and take wikipedia with as much salt as needed.

Heres the joining page for anyone who feels they can contribute
Join Wikipedia

Indeed...

My own reaction is most strong in response to those posters who cite Wikipedia, and say 'you check the references yourself.'

That, I think, is like making a claim, refusing to back it up and telling anybody who objects to 'google it,' or 'look it up yourself,' or 'prove me wrong."

A poster I know (not in here, thank heaven and anything else I can thank) used to (probably still does) post some declaration or other about an item of history or an interpretation of the bible, refuse to provide any evidence for that claim, and when challenged, say 'I"m not doing your homework for you."

That attitude is one of the reasons I don't post there any more. I think that citing Wikipedia is very much like that. MOST of the time the references will support the Wiki article....but sometimes they don't.