So Wikipedia! How much do you trust it?

**JiffOrange** · 07-06-12 at 02:17 AM

A friend of mine wrote a theoretical biophysical algorithm which was published in PNAS (I know funny name), a leading journal and his work was mis-repressented on wikipedia. When he approached them for corrections and offered to make them he was shot down. This the author of the original work ...after a lengthy battle with them (spanning more than 6 months) he was finally allowed to make the changes. Pitiful!!!!

This is typical in academic fields and due to this type of mis-repressentation, academics do not look favorably on wiki citations even at undergraduate level. My own personal faith in wikipedia ....pop culture only. Nothing with any real substance! Its a good idea but like all good ideas it is spoiled by a power hungry few!

Cheers,

Jiff

**blaxroze** · 07-06-12 at 02:37 AM

wikipedia is the best things that ever happen to me.

Nunki · 07-06-12 at 02:52 AM

when i was studying, i checked wiki against acknowledged books, and it had less mistakes then most books :)
It is however not as specific as i would like it to be in many aspects.
The best way to use it, is to get an overview. Get the basics, and if that is not enough ->
public library ^^
Yes children, reading is good!

**schopi** · 07-06-12 at 02:55 AM

It's okay to look up mundane things. But I would not recommend researching your scientific paper via Wikipedia! Lots of mistakes/inaccuracies!

**Gandolph13** · 07-06-12 at 03:25 AM

Quote:

I suspect that it is similar to the troubles that Galileo had in trying to convince others that the World was round, not flat.

What do you mean "it's round, not flat"?
News to me, if it was round, I would have fallen off by now!

Valid_Username · 07-06-12 at 10:21 AM

I don't think it was ever intended to be the definitive, most accurate source of information, maybe the most encompassing.
It's good enough for most people's needs (looking up episodes of Star Trek and Pop Stars).

You do kind of worry about the void that would be left in anything happened to it, or if they decided to commercialise or sell off to site-wreckers like IGN.

pacific · 07-06-12 at 10:43 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by moofburger

Nope!, actually the principal criticism of Wikipedia is that it isn't the open Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.

That it is intact largely a collection of articles highly slanted (POV pushing in Wiki-speak) & vigorously guarded and defended by over zealous amateur authors who will immediately knee-jerk revert any change made to the "Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" irrespective of the validity of those changes. A Kafkaesque labyrinthian bureaucracy whose sole purpose is seemingly to frustrate any attempt to correct errors. - The absolute antithesis of what a good encyclopaedia should be.

The history of wonderful whacky Wiki-world is littered with the corpses of many prominent scientists, authors, politicos & others who found their works, biographies, opinions or other facts grossly misrepresented or slandered and could not move heaven or earth to get them corrected.

Oh wait! [Citation required]

Code: Select All

http://dan.tobias.name/controversies/cyber/wiki.html

Code: Select All

http://wikipediareview.com/blog

Code: Select All

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/cat_wikipedia.html

Code: Select All

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting

Yeah allright, in all fairness, things might have improved, admittedly it's some time since I bothered taking much interest in wiki-world (around the time of the whole Daniel Brandt saga) but I frown on my students using Wikipedia at all other than immediately scrolling down to the sources list. Cut n Paste =/= research.

What he said. Gross incompetence and partiality passing off as knowledge.

**anomander** · 07-06-12 at 11:01 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by blaxroze

wikipedia is the best things that ever happen to me.

Me too

* Edit ....sorry I got it mixed up with fellatio
*fellatio is the best thing thats ever happened to me!
Wikipedia is where we all go to check the date/nationality/spelling blah blah blah of any trivia we are "almost" sure about before we go taking the piss out of someone in off-topic isnt it?

**SteveJones7** · 07-06-12 at 01:18 PM

God ano is the best thing to happen to comedy lol, a brilliant mind indeed.

and wiki is fab for a quick info burst on games Ive never heard of.
In 1 minute or less, I can quite often determine if a game is worth downloading or buying.

If I go to read reviews from dedicated game websites, they are quite often incorrect, biased, and leave out tons of info, where as wiki is almost spot on every time (for my personal tastes).

In regard to all other info, Im not young, so I can tell fairly fast if wiki is bang on, or if the writers have lost the plot.

Mostly... the info is good.

Ive heard some intellectuals say wiki is great, and others say its total crap.

At the end of the day, I rely on wiki quite heavily, as the world moves at a tremendous pace and has been after the millenium, and I want info quick, chop, chop! lol

p.s If I were working on a degree I wouldnt just rely on wiki however, I think I would get lower marks,lol.

And the combined knowledge of wiki beats my puny memory, so theres that as well lol.

It's a good complementary tool.

**jbgoode** · 07-06-12 at 02:35 PM

Things that can be verified on other sites are usually correct but when it comes to religion, politics or economics it's pure crap.
I never take this web place seriously.

**Shawn_7** · 07-06-12 at 07:10 PM

I find it useful for a first approach to a given subject, usually some scientific pages are accurate enough. However if one is seriously researching he needs other means, however as popular encyclopedia it works, and after all that is what an encyclopedia must be, a tool for the masses useful also for uneducated people. So a very simply language, many examples, many pics. What you don't usually find in a scientific text or research paper.

ranjum · 07-07-12 at 12:32 AM

I rely on Wiki for quick info or just trivial facts on pop culture - music, movies, shows etc. When it comes to academics, its a COMPLETE nada. Better consult a book. Although, they somehow improve with citations, book references are still the ones fully accepted by the academe especially in my country. I'll be smother by my professor if I submit a paper with a wiki citation on it.

**JiffOrange** · 07-07-12 at 05:08 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by ranjum

I rely on Wiki for quick info or just trivial facts on pop culture - music, movies, shows etc. When it comes to academics, its a COMPLETE nada. Better consult a book. Although, they somehow improve with citations, book references are still the ones fully accepted by the academe especially in my country. I'll be smother by my professor if I submit a paper with a wiki citation on it.

I had a bit of a whine about wikipedia on the last page ...but do agree that for most things it is quick, easy and *fairly* reliable source (pinch of salt taken).

However I can't echo what is said above enough. If you are a university student and even thinking about referencing wikipedia for anything more than a picture, turn your self around right now and head strait to your library to get a text book or journal citation! No university will give you any credit and why should they, it is not peer reviewed text! If you are in off topic ...Ano will take on all new comers with your puny new found encyclopedic knowledge

Cheers,

Jiff

View Poll Results: Wikipedia! How much do you rate it?
It's the best tool out there...	34	21.66%
It's a good complementary tool...	84	53.50%
It's a good tool but needs lots of work...	25	15.92%
I never trust anything there...	9	5.73%
WikiWhat... Are you serious?	5	3.18%
Voters: 157. You may not vote on this poll

07-06-12 at 10:43 AM	#21
pacific Newcomer Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 32	Quote: Originally Posted by moofburger Nope!, actually the principal criticism of Wikipedia is that it isn't the open Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. That it is intact largely a collection of articles highly slanted (POV pushing in Wiki-speak) & vigorously guarded and defended by over zealous amateur authors who will immediately knee-jerk revert any change made to the "Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" irrespective of the validity of those changes. A Kafkaesque labyrinthian bureaucracy whose sole purpose is seemingly to frustrate any attempt to correct errors. - The absolute antithesis of what a good encyclopaedia should be. The history of wonderful whacky Wiki-world is littered with the corpses of many prominent scientists, authors, politicos & others who found their works, biographies, opinions or other facts grossly misrepresented or slandered and could not move heaven or earth to get them corrected. Oh wait! [Citation required] Code: Select All http://dan.tobias.name/controversies/cyber/wiki.html Code: Select All http://wikipediareview.com/blog Code: Select All http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/cat_wikipedia.html Code: Select All http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting Yeah allright, in all fairness, things might have improved, admittedly it's some time since I bothered taking much interest in wiki-world (around the time of the whole Daniel Brandt saga) but I frown on my students using Wikipedia at all other than immediately scrolling down to the sources list. Cut n Paste =/= research. What he said. Gross incompetence and partiality passing off as knowledge.

07-06-12 at 01:18 PM	#23
SteveJones7 Too sexy for this board Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: teh earth Posts: 1,544	God ano is the best thing to happen to comedy lol, a brilliant mind indeed. and wiki is fab for a quick info burst on games Ive never heard of. In 1 minute or less, I can quite often determine if a game is worth downloading or buying. If I go to read reviews from dedicated game websites, they are quite often incorrect, biased, and leave out tons of info, where as wiki is almost spot on every time (for my personal tastes). In regard to all other info, Im not young, so I can tell fairly fast if wiki is bang on, or if the writers have lost the plot. Mostly... the info is good. Ive heard some intellectuals say wiki is great, and others say its total crap. At the end of the day, I rely on wiki quite heavily, as the world moves at a tremendous pace and has been after the millenium, and I want info quick, chop, chop! lol p.s If I were working on a degree I wouldnt just rely on wiki however, I think I would get lower marks,lol. And the combined knowledge of wiki beats my puny memory, so theres that as well lol. It's a good complementary tool. Last edited by SteveJones7; 07-06-12 at 01:23 PM.

07-06-12 at 02:17 AM	#15
JiffOrange Elder Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: $_POST['WIN!']; Posts: 2,717	A friend of mine wrote a theoretical biophysical algorithm which was published in PNAS (I know funny name), a leading journal and his work was mis-repressented on wikipedia. When he approached them for corrections and offered to make them he was shot down. This the author of the original work ...after a lengthy battle with them (spanning more than 6 months) he was finally allowed to make the changes. Pitiful!!!! This is typical in academic fields and due to this type of mis-repressentation, academics do not look favorably on wiki citations even at undergraduate level. My own personal faith in wikipedia ....pop culture only. Nothing with any real substance! Its a good idea but like all good ideas it is spoiled by a power hungry few! Cheers, Jiff

07-06-12 at 02:37 AM	#16
blaxroze Expert Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 959	wikipedia is the best things that ever happen to me.

07-06-12 at 02:52 AM	#17
Nunki Novice Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Terra Posts: 173	when i was studying, i checked wiki against acknowledged books, and it had less mistakes then most books :) It is however not as specific as i would like it to be in many aspects. The best way to use it, is to get an overview. Get the basics, and if that is not enough -> public library ^^ Yes children, reading is good!

07-06-12 at 02:55 AM	#18
schopi half a part & half apart Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,753	It's okay to look up mundane things. But I would not recommend researching your scientific paper via Wikipedia! Lots of mistakes/inaccuracies!

07-06-12 at 03:25 AM	#19
Gandolph13 Legendary Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Australia (GMT+10) Posts: 12,619	Quote: I suspect that it is similar to the troubles that Galileo had in trying to convince others that the World was round, not flat. What do you mean "it's round, not flat"? News to me, if it was round, I would have fallen off by now!

07-06-12 at 10:21 AM	#20
Valid_Username Expert Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: UK Posts: 720	I don't think it was ever intended to be the definitive, most accurate source of information, maybe the most encompassing. It's good enough for most people's needs (looking up episodes of Star Trek and Pop Stars). You do kind of worry about the void that would be left in anything happened to it, or if they decided to commercialise or sell off to site-wreckers like IGN.

07-06-12 at 11:01 AM	#22
anomander Reborn Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,124	Quote: Originally Posted by blaxroze wikipedia is the best things that ever happen to me. Me too * Edit ....sorry I got it mixed up with fellatio *fellatio is the best thing thats ever happened to me! Wikipedia is where we all go to check the date/nationality/spelling blah blah blah of any trivia we are "almost" sure about before we go taking the piss out of someone in off-topic isnt it?

07-06-12 at 02:35 PM	#24
jbgoode Expert Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Way over yonder (expat) Posts: 616	Things that can be verified on other sites are usually correct but when it comes to religion, politics or economics it's pure crap. I never take this web place seriously.

07-06-12 at 07:10 PM	#25
Shawn_7 Elder Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Eventyrland Posts: 3,663	I find it useful for a first approach to a given subject, usually some scientific pages are accurate enough. However if one is seriously researching he needs other means, however as popular encyclopedia it works, and after all that is what an encyclopedia must be, a tool for the masses useful also for uneducated people. So a very simply language, many examples, many pics. What you don't usually find in a scientific text or research paper.

07-07-12 at 12:32 AM	#26
ranjum Newcomer Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 8	I rely on Wiki for quick info or just trivial facts on pop culture - music, movies, shows etc. When it comes to academics, its a COMPLETE nada. Better consult a book. Although, they somehow improve with citations, book references are still the ones fully accepted by the academe especially in my country. I'll be smother by my professor if I submit a paper with a wiki citation on it.

07-07-12 at 05:08 PM	#27
JiffOrange Elder Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: $_POST['WIN!']; Posts: 2,717	Quote: Originally Posted by ranjum I rely on Wiki for quick info or just trivial facts on pop culture - music, movies, shows etc. When it comes to academics, its a COMPLETE nada. Better consult a book. Although, they somehow improve with citations, book references are still the ones fully accepted by the academe especially in my country. I'll be smother by my professor if I submit a paper with a wiki citation on it. I had a bit of a whine about wikipedia on the last page ...but do agree that for most things it is quick, easy and fairly reliable source (pinch of salt taken). However I can't echo what is said above enough. If you are a university student and even thinking about referencing wikipedia for anything more than a picture, turn your self around right now and head strait to your library to get a text book or journal citation! No university will give you any credit and why should they, it is not peer reviewed text! If you are in off topic ...Ano will take on all new comers with your puny new found encyclopedic knowledge Cheers, Jiff