Why do people still trust Wikipedia???

[JuniperLea]

I'm series. This is hugh!


Why?


:shrug:

[Selatius]

1. It's still quite reliable

The only controversy is over issues that are easily politicized. Their scientific entries and other entries are quite accurate.

[JuniperLea]

So you think the average person can discern

Truth from fudge? And you think there is no good reason to fudge up scientific entries?

[kiahzero]

9. Generally no good reason

"Mwa ha ha ha... I'll introduce a subtle bug into the QuickSort pseudocode so millions of CS majors fail their assignments!"

[Selatius]

10. Well, the last study I read done with respect to scientific entries

showed they were quite accurate.

No, I don't think the "average" person could discern truth from falsehoods, but I'm generally informed enough to tell the BS from the truth.

What good reason would there be to misrepresent a scientific entry on a certain virus or a chemical process or any other scientific entry? I could see there being a possibility to fool with scientific entries dealing with evolution, but I hardly think those articles go unpoliced, and many of the scientific entries are put up by members of the scientific community themselves and are subject to review by fellow scientists who have access to the internet.

[JuniperLea]

12. Just wondering how others felt about the science

My oldest kid is a chemical engineer and he chides me when he sees wikipedia on the screen.

In an era where we are continually baffled with bullshit, it just makes sense to me to avoid anything even slightly suspect.

[MysteryToMyself]

2. Why not?

It is monitored and people can put in their version.

[oscar111]

DEMOPEDIA still exists, just google the term

seems to be abandoned by DU as far as links, but i see dr debug still works at cleaning up bugs on it.

[Rhiannon12866]

6. Is this no longer on the Links page?

(I could have just looked :eyes:). I know the Links Manager. I'll bring it to his attention. Thanks.:hi:

[Bluebear]

3. On other than flamebait material they are usually very reliable

The history of Judy Collins or the science of firefighting techniques, say, not Israel and hezbollah.

[JuniperLea]

7. Or are you saying

That other information isn't as critical, so it really doesn't matter if it's correct or not?

I've seen erroneous information on singers... two different dates for the birth of Robert Plant, for instance.

I just don't think that anecdotal information has a place here. It's fine for curiosity seekers, but not here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. What do you mean by "here"?

For a non-political subject, I'd trust Wikipedia more than DU, I'm afraid. When there isn't a reason for people to purposely put up incorrect facts, then it gradually gets fairly accurate. Each page has normally had many revisions, as people (both experts, and casual users like me) correct any mistakes, or add new information.

2 different birth dates for someone may turn up on Wikipedia, but they can also turn up in a newspaper.

[lonestarnot]

4. Are they saying nice things about Red Rover over there?

Well then...

[sgxnk]

5. wikipedia

wikipedia is useful as a sort of cultural barometer, but not as a reliable source document.

wikipedia entries can provide references to other source documents and.or verifiable sources

but other than that, it's a nice gauge of what the wikipedia consensus community (tm) THINKS about things, but not as a source for objectivity

[JuniperLea]

8. Bingo

Thanks. I was hoping someone would get it.


:hi:

[sgxnk]

15. cheers nt

[MrPrax]

11. Why do people post air

and expect other people to come up with arguments?

I am serious, but it's not huge...


:puke: <--What do these mean and where do people get them?

[JuniperLea]

13. Why do people post veiled insults

Then ask stupid questions?

[MrPrax]

19. Still waiting?

You have someting tangible to say on this topic?

Hmm...let's see here...

So you think the average person can discern Truth from fudge?

I dunno...I have 2 degrees, so an educated person's approach to any material will be different from an uneducated person?

By average person -- do you mean stupid, uneducated?

If so, then it really wouldn't matter if the person was reading Wikipedia, About.com, Ask Jeeves, Fox News or the Thomist...they aren't sufficiently grounded in the material to begin with, so judging 'OBJECTIVITY' and 'TRUTH' is going to be hard going anyway.

Moving right along....

In an era where we are continually baffled with bullshit, it just makes sense to me to avoid anything even slightly suspect.?

That would be???? (hint: your answer could have been part of the OP...if you notice, you do have a lot to say on the subject, but you decided to reveal your OPINIONS in the form of reply)

I've seen erroneous information on singers... two different dates for the birth of Robert Plant, for instance.

So have I...especially those 'Today's Celebrity Birthday' things published in virtually every newspaper in North America? So what's the right answer? Which source are you using to figure out which of the TWO dates are wrong? According to Wikipedia, John the Baptist has two heads?

I figure that is probably inaccurate -- oh not the part about Wikipedia reporting the two sets of heads -- but the part about either of being John the Bapist's head?

So objectivity here is the mere reporting of the controversy, not the taking of sides to figure out which one is the right head and which one is the head of the Pretender. You seem confused on this point about what 'resource' material is really supposed to present?

Here are two entries on similar subjects: Quantum Mechanics and Warp Drives.

They are both technically accurate. :shrug:

AH--know we are getting a little closer to the actual complaint...
I just don't think that anecdotal information has a place here. It's fine for curiosity seekers, but not here.

What's a curiosity seeker and when one is educated, is this simply 'curiosity seeking'? What's anecdotal information? Celebrity birthdays?

Where's here? DU...?

Why do I think that --speculating here, not that it happened to you or anyone in particular -- that someone made an assertion and someone else posted a 'rebuttle' to the assertion with a Wikipedia link that the original poster couldn't refute with the 'sources' they agree with?

[JuniperLea]

20. You assume much n/t

[MrPrax]

22. Nope...I just know More n/t

[JuniperLea]

24. Oh, I just love the stench of arrogance in the morning

Too bad all those degrees and all that knowledge are no guarantee of a pleasing personality.

[MrPrax]

26. Still Waiting?

and Yes...Yes I am arrogant on this point about 'knowledge' 'perception' and 'objectivity'?

..and the sources you feel are 'right'? I've missed this part in the thread...since you didn't bother to make these sources available in your Original Post...I'll ask you again?

If Wikipedia is wrong, who's right?

What do you make of this?

Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

BBC from December, 2005

Thoughts? You apparantly have an opinion...?

[JuniperLea]

29. I really try to avoid arrogant people, so I won't converse

Secondly, I merely asked a question about a certain website. I never once intimated that I know better or that I have much better sources. I just asked for the opinions of others. I certainly didn't ask for your savage and ugly condescension.

I owe you nothing.


Good God. Do you have any friends? Or do you save your creepy repartee for anonymous message board posting?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. !

:spray:

Mwah!!! That Was Bee You Ti Ful.

You have backed up your position amazingly in this thread. You have my deep respect for your capability.

[bryant69]

14. I only use Wikipedia to look up information on Comic Books and Dr. Who

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Protagoras]

16. As with any internet source...Trust but Verify

Why would I accept anything single sourced off any internet site? (Yes that includes DU :P)

But it's a darn good place to start when I do go info gathering. That much I do trust.

[Blue Belle]

17. I like the reference links it provides...

I like to read the actual articles sourced because it often leads me to better and more reliable information. Sure you can Google a topic, but you have to weed through so much crap before you find a pertainent article. Plus Wikipedia usually has current topical information with references - which you can't always get anywhere else.

[Boojatta]

21. Which is larger: the number of people who smoke regularly or the number

of people who use Wikipedia regularly? Which is more hazardous: smoking or Wikipedia?

[JuniperLea]

25. I wouldn't know

I don't smoke.

[earth mom]

23. I use it...but warily. eom

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Because It Is An Invaluable Source Of Information.

It is extremely informative and very well maintained. I appreciate wiki.

[readmoreoften]

28. I was writing non-fiction books and we made up all the information.

They were "Choose the best college" books. There are 10 million of them, and they only pay about $10,000 for the writer to do *the whole damn book*. So you know those "top ten lists". We just rehashed them from other top ten lists and internet research. Top ten christian colleges? We'd find the names of 10 big Christian colleges and put them on a list. The whole thing was largely rehashed or fabricated. The writer I was working with said that this was the norm. The whole thing kind of turned my stomach, but I realized that there is no oversight to accuracy in book publishing either.

What you are getting in books in largely opinion (less so in a major encyclopedia, but there is definitely bias there as well, just no way to dispute it.) If you really want accuracy, read only peer-reviewed academic literature. Everything else is largely people talking out of their asses.

Personally, I think that Wikipedia has the best oversight of all: millions of self-appointed experts to hash out the truth until it's agreed upon. But don't kid yourself thinking that the grossly underfunded editors at HarperCollins et al. with their bachelors and MA degrees in English are doing rigorous fact checking in the latest astrophysics book.

[derby378]

30. There are some DUers who still work on Wikipedia

I use it all the time, but when in doubt, I keep my options open. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.