This sums up wikipedia quite well!!!
http://www.comedycentral.com/mother...ayVideo=72347&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true
http://www.comedycentral.com/mother...ayVideo=72347&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true
Wikiality!!!
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Yep. Colbert usually manages to pin down the facts. It's like I've been saying since 1997. "It must be true, I saw it on the internet!"
ha
we all knew that wikipedia was not neccessarily reliable though eh? fact is if something is contested, we can't really rely on it, although usually when a matter is contested, it says so on the page. Factual matters though can be relied on.
By the way how do you suppose a hard-copy encyclopedia is compiled?
we all knew that wikipedia was not neccessarily reliable though eh? fact is if something is contested, we can't really rely on it, although usually when a matter is contested, it says so on the page. Factual matters though can be relied on.
By the way how do you suppose a hard-copy encyclopedia is compiled?
Not by every wing nut with an agenda or an axe to grind, having the ablity to change history with a key stroke.
That is the problem with wikipedia.
Encylcopedias, rarely site themselves as their proof of fact.
There is another problem with wikipedia.
It's tantamount to the criminal being his own aliby.
everyone puts their own spin on things. everyone has a bias. I think the wikipedia has an element of viability. we all know not to trust parts of it but it can be valuable resource as well
Quite right. If I quote Wikipedia, I also add other sources as backup. What I find handy about Wiki is that it says stuff in layman's language. For instance, I could post a Science Magazine article and a lot of people would only understand a tenth of the article (sometimes me included).
- abstract from SciMag
This article compares encyclopia britanica vs wikipeda http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39155109,00.htm.
"That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia." Not too bad for a user submitted encylopedia.
"That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia." Not too bad for a user submitted encylopedia.
Exactly. You wouldn't trust a rope of unknown origin to rappel down a two hundred foot cliff. Why not just get a collaborative source or two?
I doubt it!!!
The longer it exists, the greater the exposure to those that will yndoubtedly learn, that they can effectually change the perception of reality of many sheeple.
Be weiry of any sourse of information that footnotes itself, provides its own proof and so on.
The major difference between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britanica, is...
Wikipedia, for the most part uses internal sources of proof.
Encyclopedia Britanica, sites institutions such as the Smythsonian, etc. Reputable sources.
That's not to say that wiki, doesn't source out side of itself, it does. But in many cases, I have found that source to provide footnote source reference back to Wikipedia. That is a flaw beyond contempt.
Either way you want to take it, sobeit, but don't be surprised when someone wipe their arse with your wikiality.
Although people can enter what they like, the wikipedia isn't unregulated. If people see something they think is spurious it can be reported, it can then be checked out and either deleted or edited. So the longer it exists, the more people will realise that it's not a tool for pushing your own perverted ideas but for the spreading of knowledge. And the more people look at it now and check it's accuracy, the more knowledge will be preserved for the future. As for internal referencing, you'll often find that the source is still accurate despite that, and often the source for the internal source is external. Also since the wiki is often written by laymen with no understanding of referencing, the references aren't quoted. This does mean it's hard to check the reliability of some of the info but it does mean that it gives the wikipedia access to knowledge which might not be available via traditional routes.
Obviously the wikipedia isnt AS reliable as for instance the brittanica, BUT it isnt UNreliable, it's a very useful tool. It shouldn't be dismissed. As for wiping my arse, i'd rather use paper than a website.
Well the thing is, that the vandalism is short-lived. They have many volunteers who go back and fix things up. I'm sure they aren't using wikipedia to fact-check. No one should use a wikipedia as a scholarly article, nor would I use an encyclopdia as a scholarly article. Encyclopedias are good place to start a search, as they often provide the reader with related subject matter in the listings. More and more the internet is getting better at providing scholarly articles to view, or at least news magazines with references to the scholarly article.
It's like Gilbert said, scholarly articles are filled with terminology, processes and really technical discipline specific lingo.
I have a scholarly article which I have to turn into a piece of popular news. The article is 7 pages long, and titled "Growth and Economic performance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed on three brans (maize, wheat and rice) in fertilized ponds". Basically I have to make it interesting while including the gist of the science and about one page in length. My first start is what to tile it, maybe something along the lines of poking fun at Shatner for his bran commercials.
Edit:
As an aside, this on-line community has some parallels to the wiki issue. Topics here are debated and discussed, sometimes with references other times not. A reference isn't required for all topics, I mean some things are axiomatic and don't require explanation. However the references are often included in the debates where the issue isn't so cut and dry. Some people here are better than others at following articles and doing the research to get at the heart of the matter, much like the wiki volunteers. In this way some arguments forwarded here are shown for what they are, utter garbage, and others sometimes contain truths that the poster for some reason or another omitted.
It's like Gilbert said, scholarly articles are filled with terminology, processes and really technical discipline specific lingo.
I have a scholarly article which I have to turn into a piece of popular news. The article is 7 pages long, and titled "Growth and Economic performance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed on three brans (maize, wheat and rice) in fertilized ponds". Basically I have to make it interesting while including the gist of the science and about one page in length. My first start is what to tile it, maybe something along the lines of poking fun at Shatner for his bran commercials.
Edit:
As an aside, this on-line community has some parallels to the wiki issue. Topics here are debated and discussed, sometimes with references other times not. A reference isn't required for all topics, I mean some things are axiomatic and don't require explanation. However the references are often included in the debates where the issue isn't so cut and dry. Some people here are better than others at following articles and doing the research to get at the heart of the matter, much like the wiki volunteers. In this way some arguments forwarded here are shown for what they are, utter garbage, and others sometimes contain truths that the poster for some reason or another omitted.
Last edited:
You must have used wiki to come up with that...lol...just kidding...
To boldly go, where no bran has gone before!
:laughing7: :wave:
there you go! I knew the whole thing just typed it madly fast cos i wanted to be the first!
if u want scholarly articles you want web of knowledge or something like that. I spend my whole life at the moment reading bloody scholarly bloody articles. And they almost never say what u want them to!
angry9:
if u want scholarly articles you want web of knowledge or something like that. I spend my whole life at the moment reading bloody scholarly bloody articles. And they almost never say what u want them to!
angry9:
my old professor had discovered something which mightone day be useful with rhinoviruses, and it involved the use of copper (Cu) and rhenium (Re). he entitled his talk "a CuRe for the common cold?"