What is Wiki ?


Well I knew about the general idea of Wiki and like to use it ,with caution ,of course ,most of the time the "wiki" is pretty well dead on --so far --I like the different views presented ,trying to be unbiased is always fun to achieve

The most recent addition to the world of online discussion groups is the wiki, which means “quick” in Hawaiian. A wiki is simply a web page or group of web pages that anyone can edit. No skills other than typing are necessary to add information to a wiki. Wikis were created by Ward Cunningham in 1995, and his group still maintains the first wiki. The largest and most well known wiki is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
One of the advantages of the wiki is its simplicity. No web skills are required to add information. Simply click to edit a page, start typing, save, and voilà: instant webpage. However, this advantage is arguably the biggest disadvantage of a wiki. Anyone can add whatever they like to a wiki, possibly creating a jumble of chaos and disinformation. Proponents of wikis argue that the community involved in the wiki will simply delete wrong or inappropriate information.
On a wiki, any user can simply delete the negative entries that are not relevant or constructive for the overall topic on that page. On the other hand, if a community reaches a consensus over what information should be included on a page, they run the risk of disseminating false or incomplete information. Many users who believe a lie can shout down a single user who knows the truth.
Systems Librarian Mary Ann Chappell has created a password-protected wiki for Carrier Library staff; it will contain a growing amount of information about the new library building, as well as other library projects.
I like using Wikipedia, for what its worth. But you have to take it with a grain of salt, I know this because they are often incorrect in the advanced mathematics. For instance, developable surfaces (external - login to view), they write down a few examples as if its an extensive list. When I originally looked it up they didn't include tangent developables... I can only imagine what other experts think in their areas.

But for the most part if you check the references, you can learn a lot. But their thesis is fundamentally flawed: knowledge is not democratic. Even if the majority believes it, it could still be false.

I like checking the controversial articles, trying to find where people simply put in lies. It can be fun at times.
Thats why its open for edit and for people to add the correction and just add on ,it is like a living map, our life as we all see it
Quote: Originally Posted by temperanceView Post

Thats why its open for edit and for people to add the correction and just add on ,it is like a living map, our life as we all see it

I have an account there. I just can't be bothered to make that commitment...

Tycho Brahe from Penny Arcade put it quite humourously: "I don't have time to babysit the internet."

But still to this day I went to get in there and add what I know.
I realize that ,its like going to yahoo and answering questions lol
Dexter Sinister
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

I...their thesis is fundamentally flawed: knowledge is not democratic.

Exactly. I too enjoy Wikipedia and refer to it a lot, but on anything serious, it's the starting point, not the end point. If I want to know something trivial, like say Leonard Nimoy's birthdate, that's where I'll go first, and probably last on something that trivial, but if I want to know about the calculus of vector functions*, I might start at Wiki and spread out into the references and google for more detail on specific things of interest. But there's an established and uncontroversial body of knowledge about the calculus of vector functions. For things more controversial, like the causes and treatment of homosexuality for instance, I certainly wouldn't rely on Wiki as a sole source of information. There are too many people with too many axes to grind on controversial subjects.

*actually I have a textbook with that title, so on that particular subject I'd start there, but the principle remains.
Just this morning I read on another forum about a guy who purposely planted misinformation and erroneous data on Wiki to see how long it would take them to catch it or some astute reader to do so.

He called it "Wiki-watching"....

I think that's wrong. It's a free service and people should do their homework by checking two or three sources before putting up something they feel is credible.
no new posts