NCclimber 0 #1 January 30, 2007 What's the deal with some people's animosity towards this site? I've found it to be a great resource for getting basic info. I understand how it's run and see the relevant problems. But by and large, it's pretty credible. And on the contentious topics, there's usually a warning about it being locked or that the accuracy is contested. And sometime the infomation is lacking. Is it secretly run by Haliburton? Murdock? Why is it not a credible, objective site? Who does it favor? Who does is slight? What's the deal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 January 30, 2007 Since you are new.... any time in the past when anyone used it quite a few of our RIGHTWINGNUTS have denigrated its use as not being allowed because it is NOT authoritative because it can be edited and abused by those evil lefties. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2286357#2286357 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #3 January 30, 2007 QuoteSince you are new.... any time in the past when anyone used it quite a few of our RIGHTWINGNUTS have denigrated its use as not being allowed because it is NOT authoritative because it can be edited and abused by those evil lefties. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2286357#2286357 Or at least ONE rightwingnut. Then again you do have a knack for making across the board generalizations from one person's actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #4 January 30, 2007 There have been some fairly public "breaches" of Wiki, whcih ended up in information that was completely false being posted. However, their system caught it and it was removed. I think in all, Wiki is pretty accurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 January 30, 2007 The problem is that it is simultaneously accurate and wildly inaccurate depending upon which articles you look at. If the topic is something to the effect of "number of Star Trek episodes" it's an incredibly accurate research tool because essentially there is a large number of people that agree on the subject and it's a fact; there where only a finite amount of episodes. Further the facts can be elaborated upon in nearly perfect detail by fans. Any inaccuracies that slip in are IMMEDIATELY corrected by the greater mass of people editing the topic. If, on the other hand, the topic is even vaguely controversial, proponents of both sides of the controversy "compete" in their editing of the topic. In fact the side that is "winning" can flip the entry in a very short amount of time, but that says NOTHING about its accuracy. So, if you want to know somehting that MOST people agree on, it's actually pretty useful, but anything that is controversial . . . its validity may change hour by hour.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #6 January 30, 2007 >any time in the past when anyone used it quite a few of our > RIGHTWINGNUTS have denigrated its use as not being allowed > because it is NOT authoritative because it can be edited and abused > by those evil lefties. Well, to be fair, those same people use it as an authoritative source when it agrees with them: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2513639;search_string=wikipedia;#2513585 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #7 January 30, 2007 do a search.. you will come up with PLENTY of non approved sites that the RIGHTWINGNUTS will not read because they are not on the approved Conswervative propoganda sites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #8 January 30, 2007 I find it to be a great site for information just to quell my curiousity about something. I've found info on South Pacific islands, rare species, etc. But, since it is easily edited, I never use it as a source for a paper in any of my classes. And my political veiws have nothing to do with that choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #9 January 30, 2007 I don't use it as a source, but I'll often use the sources in the articles. At the bottom of most of the articles, there's links to the sites where they got their info, journals, etc... Those can be really useful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #10 January 30, 2007 QuoteI don't use it as a source, but I'll often use the sources in the articles. At the bottom of most of the articles, there's links to the sites where they got their info, journals, etc... Those can be really useful. Same here. It is a good "source of sources". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #11 January 31, 2007 Exxon Mobil sponsors Wikipedia Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VincentVL. 0 #12 January 31, 2007 It's pretty useful. Just don't forget to double check if you need the info for something that actually matters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 January 31, 2007 Entries can be changed by just about anyone - however, it can be a handy place gathering initial information and cites. It's not to say that all the info on there is wrong - but you definitely need to verify through other means.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #14 January 31, 2007 QuoteIt's not to say that all the info on there is wrong - but you definitely need to verify through other means. I agree, but repeated this part, since it really is the case for everything you read..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #15 January 31, 2007 Wouldn't these same problems crop up in the editing of commercial encyclopedias? And wouldn't the problem be more serious, as there would be less input to temper the accuracy of the information? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 January 31, 2007 QuoteWouldn't these same problems crop up in the editing of commercial encyclopedias? There would be inadvertant bias, but generally not blatant misrepresentation. Wanna have some fun? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert also see http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/24/microsoft.wikipedia.ap/index.html Now, Microsoft isn't exactly known for its stunning creativity. If THEY are doing it, you can only imagine what other evil companys and politicos are doing.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #17 February 6, 2007 Quoteany time in the past when anyone used it quite a few of our RIGHTWINGNUTS have denigrated its use as not being allowed because it is NOT authoritative because it can be edited and abused by those evil lefties. Your link shows a guy saying how kids are getting in trouble for using it for college level classes. But you said " quite a few of our RIGHTWINGNUTS have denigrated its use as not being allowed because it is NOT authoritative " Another prime example of you exagerating the hell out of something so it fits your agenda. Though it can be usefull and I have used it to read another example. I don't take it as "fact" and I would never cite it in a paper. Most of my instructors will flat out tell you not to cite it, or they will deduct points. Yet when he does take points they seemed shocked since most thought it was "fact". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
