skydiver30960 0 #1 October 30, 2008 So throughout school (the second time around) my professors spewed no end of filth about wikipedia, the idea being that since it was an open source that allowed any yokel to modify the information being conveyed that it was useless as a source of information. For example, there was a special level of hell reserved for any student who dared try to cite wikipedia as a reference in any paper. (I totally understand this one though, and at the fact that people still did it!) Their argument was that google wasn't much better, but that it is possible to intelligently sift through the results of a google search to find a "good" resource while with wikipedia what you get is what you get. But more and more, I see people going to wikipedia as a knee-jerk reaction when they need to know about something. So is this OK, or one of the signs of the Apocalypse? Do we trust our "average joe" to know what the hell he's talking about, or is this becoming a huge case of the blind leading the blind? Elvisio "better or worse than google" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #2 October 30, 2008 I think that talk radio is a bigger threat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gravitysurfer 0 #3 October 30, 2008 For thoughts on that very topic read: http://www.amazon.com/Dumbest-Generation-Stupefies-Americans-Jeopardizes/dp/1585426393 I just finished it a couple weeks ago. Interesting read. aloha. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #4 October 30, 2008 I have found the wiki entries on physics and engineering topics to be accurate and generally complete, and a good source for primary references.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #5 October 30, 2008 Interesting thought. I think Wikipedia is, generally speaking, quite a good thing. On non-controversial topic it tends to be very accurate, and with the links and citations at the bottom of each article can be used as a good jumping off point for further research into a topic. You're never going to see me use it in an essay or assignment, but I do use it for loads of other stuff. (Interestingly enough, Wikipedia and YouTube are jointly responsible for me starting to to develop an appreciation of classical music! Who'd have thought that?)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #6 October 30, 2008 No, you said people's "basis level of intelligence". If they didn't have the internet and something like wiki then they the basic human would either not try to find out or they'd ask someone who probably doesn't know either. Wiki should be taken as an opinion, not the answer so it has no place in research. For it to be used in a college level paper is worthy of a Fail. To learn, you have to read the source, not someone's interpretation of the source. I used to help my roommate grade his students' papers. He would underline items that didn't look like the student's style and I'd google search it. If it was something like a BS wiki quote he'd take them down a letter grade for an uncited reference and poor source."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #7 October 30, 2008 QuoteI have found the wiki entries on physics and engineering topics to be accurate and generally complete, and a good source for primary references. Me too. Wikipedia generally references it's source material so even if you have little faith in Wikipedia, they make it easy for you to go direct to the horses mouth so-to-speak. I wouldn't cite wikipedia as a reference, but I frequently use it as a starting point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 October 30, 2008 In past decades, professors/teachers said the same thing about the encyclopedia. Which is what you'd expect, since they're the same thing. And despite the ability of people to edit in lies intentionally, scientific study of wikipedia has shown it to be as accurate as benchmark encyclopedias. So their primary argument is false. Should go back to the old one about the laziness of consulting a single general source. That's somewhat false too, because wiki entries tend to have good citation lists for alternative sources, something a print bound version cannot do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #9 October 30, 2008 You don't have to be in college for too long before you figure out that when they tell you not to use wiki as a source, all you have to do is scroll down to the bottom of the page and find the original source page and use that. Most of the time, it is legit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blueskybug 0 #10 October 31, 2008 Based on what you say and the fact that the avg IQ in the US is 98. I would say there is not much to worry about...Hong Kong was the highest IIRC at 107 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misaltas 0 #11 October 31, 2008 Ugh. As with any conversation about Wikipedia, there's mostly miscomprehension, and typically a few who actually get it. A Wikipedia article is not a source. It contains content pulled from a collection of other sources. It doesn't allow original research or ideas. Everything written must be cited and verifiable. The quality of an article depends mostly on the quality of the sources used to create it.Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #12 October 31, 2008 QuoteIt doesn't allow original research or ideas. Everything written must be cited and verifiable. The quality of an article depends mostly on the quality of the sources used to create it. And that's where (on certain controversial topics) it can be manipulated to reflect only one view point. Cites and sources can also be quote mined and presented out of context along with biased conclusions by the user. True, this tends to result in edit wars which get noticed, and editorial controls imposed by wiki, but sometimes if you go in at the wrong time on the wrong subject with out any previous knowledge, you could get led down the wrong path.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #13 October 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't allow original research or ideas. Everything written must be cited and verifiable. The quality of an article depends mostly on the quality of the sources used to create it. And that's where (on certain controversial topics) it can be manipulated to reflect only one view point. Cites and sources can also be quote mined and presented out of context along with biased conclusions by the user. True, this tends to result in edit wars which get noticed, and editorial controls imposed by wiki, but sometimes if you go in at the wrong time on the wrong subject with out any previous knowledge, you could get led down the wrong path. It's the same with any information you pull from the internet, not just Wikipedia - caveat emptor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misaltas 0 #14 November 1, 2008 Quote It's the same with any information you pull from the internet, not just Wikipedia - caveat emptor. Wooooshsh...Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
