Can I trust wikipedia?

fjon

I really like using and use it quite often. When looking for information I would generally use wiki before Google.

However, but it's very nature it's quite prone to being full of erroneous information I would have thought, but I've yet to come accross anything I would consider to be be incorrect.

So how reliable/ correct is the information in there? Has anyone come across any blatantly incorrect articles?

ferdi

Wikipedia is your god.

Hobbes

All truthiness comes form research of an article and not taking it at face value.

TBH I use wikipedia but I generally read the comments section too as it can give you a break down of where people disagree.

astrofool

Well I know, doing a uni project atm, that academic's aren't liking the use of wikipedia, due to the fact that its not peer-reviewed. I generally use it as a starting off point, before finding a paper via citeseer or acm.portal.org on the subjects mentioned in the wiki (and google again to find more).

Its a means to an end really, but has some way to go before being recognised as a factual source in academic circles.

Mad Mike

Wikipedia compared with Britannica by renowned scientific journal "Nature": http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Brittanica had a slight edge in accuracy but Wikipedia comes very close.

Wikipedia is open to abuse but there appears to be a dedicated following of commited Wikipediers who quickly react to correct blatant abuse. I'm a big fan.

lostexpectation

astrofool wrote:

Its a means to an end really, but has some way to go before being recognised as a factual source in academic circles.

i don't think it ever whats to, people forget what an encyclopedia was,they was this very finite amount of text in books, they were never right either, so if you not sure look further.

the guy who owned it seemed to make some changes to it after that false jfk thing, which was wrong the site did its job...

themole

tbh, the basis behind wikipedia is fundamentally flawed.

it works on the assuption that a bunch of people will eventually produce a good article but does not take into account the knowledge of the users and everyone is treated as equally knowledgeable.

i recently read a good article pointing out its weaknesses, can't remember where but a good quote from it, was something like this:
"it turns out that it is impossible to distinguish an article written by a) 30 people who know nothing about the field and b) 29 people who know nothing and one expert".

without peer review and some system for giving more weight to people who have more knowledge possibly through qualifications and the regard with which they are held in the field, wikipedia will remain nothing but a quick reference for info where you do not place any great importance or weight on the answer, akin to asking a friend a question about something they may know nothing about

its far from an enclypedia

dalk

I cant say i trust it too much either, except maybe, for techy stuff.

Coincidently, an example of wiki error.

fjon

dalk wrote:

I cant say i trust it too much either, except maybe, for techy stuff.

Coincidently, an example of wiki error.

Excellent!

wikipedia wrote:

He first gained recognition in America when Irish rock group U2 had a massive hit with his composition, With or Without You. His music had an enormous influence on the many singer-songwriters to emerge in the late 90s, and Damien Rice, Damien Dempsey and Paddy Casey owe an enormous debt to his efforts to put Irish music on the international map.

Sleepy

Treat it like asking a friend who knows more about something than you do and it's and extremely useful resource.

Base your thesis on a wiki article and you'll be flipping burgers in McDonalds.

Terry

it's handy if you just want ot look up something of little significance. i wouldn't really trust as a source of information for exams and stuff.

themole wrote:

it works on the assuption that a bunch of people will eventually produce a good article but does not take into account the knowledge of the users and everyone is treated as equally knowledgeable.

like 1,000 monkeys at 1,000 typewriters trying to write skakespeare?

themole

Sleepy wrote:

Treat it like asking a friend who knows more about something than you do and it's and extremely useful resource.

Base your thesis on a wiki article and you'll be flipping burgers in McDonalds.

true enough.

but it would have the potential to be a more reliably resource if peer review was added.

possibly assigning editors to particualre articles or sections, so only those who are seen as good can change it but others could add suggestions

themole

julep wrote:

like 1,000 monkeys at 1,000 typewriters trying to write skakespeare?

indeed, but if shakespeare was their editor?

Terry

i don't think it would make any difference. they're monkeys.
therein lies the flaw.

ruprect

Look up the definition of gimp and you will see how bad it can be. People use it a lot here and just generally I hear it out & about, all because of pulp fiction. Gimp in the film was referring to the fact that the nutter dressed in the S&M costume had a "gimp leg", i.e. he was lame. Now it has come to mean "a nutter dressed in the S&M costume"
It has gone so far that they have references by other people using it in error in other films, and so they think it is an actual proper definition!

Treat anything you see there as though it was written on a toilet wall.

I think the daniel o donnel bit was taking the piss

Goodshape

Wouldn't use it as a one and only source of information, but then I could say that about any one source.

In saying that, Wikipedia is da bomb. Love it to bits. And most things will be referenced off site anyway, so you can usually follow up on where they're getting their information (plus the talk page, as someone else said).

lostexpectation

themole wrote:

tbh, the basis behind wikipedia is fundamentally flawed.

without peer review and some system for giving more weight to people who have more knowledge possibly through qualifications and the regard with which they are held in the field, wikipedia will remain nothing but a quick reference for info where you do not place any great importance or weight on the answer, akin to asking a friend a question about something they may know nothing about

its far from an enclypedia

how do you know those experts are right???? its not about expert opinion its one reference of many, a free one!

why overstate it and say you'd be crazy to base your thesis on it, of course you would, nobody ever suggested doing that so why are you?

Goodshape

ruprect wrote:

Now it has come to mean "a nutter dressed in the S&M costume"

That's fair enough to be honest. It's a fact that that word is used that way, why shouldn't an encyclopeida entry mention it?

I thought that's what it's always meant myself

MorningStar

I think it can be usefull for a starting point but there are obviously some people having a laugh and or just stupid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_O%27Donnell_%28Irish_singer%29

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50887225#post50887225

Mind you I am not sure what is wrong with the gimp definition. That was my understanding before the film although Dublin slang used it a lot it still meant the same thing AFAIK.

aphex™

You can't trust wikipedia at all. I usually demonstrate this by changing the first line of the Socialism page from:

"Socialism is an ideology of a social and economic system where..."

To:

"Socialism is a failed ideology of a social and economic system where..."

Spot the difference

However in fairness they change it back within a minute, but that is just because they keep an eye on the socialism page.

You do risk being banned from the whole thing for doing it though.

Just a minute ago I fixed a link to software which it said was ad-free but actually installed two ad programs on my pc. So I relied on it and it didn't do me any good.
EDIT: Of course some idiot had to change it back while I'm sitting here looking at the ads in the program.

themole

lostexpectation wrote:

how do you know those experts are right???? its not about expert opinion its one reference of many, a free one!

the expert is more likely to be right.
when someone tells you something its all about the person as to whether or not you beleive them, and you would prob base this on their reputation

lostexpectation wrote:

why overstate it and say you'd be crazy to base your thesis on it, of course you would, nobody ever suggested doing that so why are you?

in it current state, yes you are right.

but what i am saying is that it could be made better.

the problem is that lots of people beleive what they read nad some or these put too much faith in wikipedia, thats how urban legends get started, most are harmless but some are not and skew reason and our opinions.

seamus

Yes and no. Like any other source found on the net, wikipedia is worth checking out, but is also worth checking against other sources.

For contentious or subjective articles (War history, media controversies, elections, etc etc), you can easily find pieces of blatant opinion and/or speculation.

However for factual, technical articles about things like science or biographies of historical non-political figures, it's great.
I use it mostly as a primer on something I know little about, or as a reference for things which I've forgotten.

I wouldn't use it as the be-all and end-all of any serious research however, even for the factual articles.

Terry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4695376.stm

Online reference site Wikipedia blames US Congress staff for partisan changes to a number of political biographies.

Computers traced to Capitol Hill removed unpalatable facts from articles on senators, while other entries were "vandalised", the site said.

An inquiry was launched after staff for Democratic representative Marty Meehan admitted polishing his biography.

Wikipedia is produced by readers who add entries and edit any page, and has become a widely-used reference tool.

'Liberal' to 'activist'

Using the public history of edits on Wikipedia, researchers collected the internet protocol numbers of computers linked to the US Senate and tracked the changes made to online pages.

The site lists half a dozen prominent biographies that had been changed by Senate computers, including those of Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, California Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa.

Senator Coleman's office has confirmed that staff there had made a number of changes to his online record.

Where he was described as a "liberal" back in college, this was changed to "activist".

Among other changes, staff also deleted a reference to Mr Coleman voting with President Bush 98% of the time in 2003, despite running as a moderate the year before.

Wikipedia said staffers of Senator Tom Harkin had removed a paragraph relating to Mr Harkin's having falsely claimed to have flown combat missions over North Vietnam, and his subsequent recantation.

A handful of miscellaneous vandalism edits had been made to some senators' articles, it said.

One example was the entry for Republican Senator Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, who it was falsely alleged had been voted "most annoying senator".

Bush editing block

Senator Coleman's chief of staff, Erich Mische, said editing was done to correct inaccuracies and delete information that was not reflective of the politician.


The article on President Bush has been altered so many times - not just from within Congress - that Wikipedia's volunteer monitors have had to block further "editing"

"They've got an edit provision on there for the sake of editing when things are not accurate," Mr Mische told the Associated Press.

"I presume that if they did not want people to edit, they wouldn't allow you to edit."

Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it.

It said the Congressional computer network has been blocked from editing for brief periods on a number of occasions in the last six months due to the inappropriate contributions.

The article on President Bush has been altered so many times - not just from within Congress - that Wikipedia's volunteer monitors have had to block further "editing".

But it also says its investigation showed the vast majority of edits from Senate IPs were "beneficial and helpful".

Massachusetts newspapers disclosed last month that staffers for Representative Marty Meehan had polished the boss's Wikipedia biography.

Deleted were references to a long-abandoned promise to serve only four terms, and to his campaign war chest.

Accuracy study

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage. Anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.

A December 2005 study by the British journal Nature found it was about as accurate on science as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler - which incorrectly linked him to the Kennedy assassinations.

some people certainly do abuse it.

ruprect

Goodshape wrote:

That's fair enough to be honest. It's a fact that that word is used that way, why shouldn't an encyclopeida entry mention it?

I thought that's what it's always meant myself

did you think it meant that before watching pulp fiction? or had you even heard the term before it?

I have no problem if it said "the term is now incorrectly used in reference to S&M or in a deragatory way due to the film pulp fiction, a physically lame character was called "the gimp" due to a bad leg but the name was used to describe the character by fans"

But it states

In the film Pulp Fiction an un-named gimp kept in the basement of two homosexual rapists was prominently featured.

as though the term was well known before pulp fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimp_%28sadomasochism%29

Terry

i knew the term "gimp" before i first saw pulp fiction. i knew three meanings for it.
the S&M one, the lame leg one and the Dublin slang one.

wikipedia wasn't going to throw me on that one.

Goodshape

ruprect wrote:

did you think it meant that before watching pulp fiction? or had you even heard the term before it?

julep wrote:

i knew the term "gimp" before i first saw pulp fiction. i knew three meanings for it. the S&M one, the lame leg one and the Dublin slang one.

^^^^

ruprect

What is the dublin slang one? I NEVER heard it before pulp fiction which is 12 years old this year BTW so it is a long time back when I did first hear it.

I think it very strange that "the gimp" did actually have a gimp leg? do you not?

I would like to see any dictionary or slang dictionary published before pulp fiction that lists the S&M meaning. all the wikipedia references are to films/books etc AFTER pulp fiction.

I even found this on an online slang dictionary

Gimp: A computer nerd that will not help a person with a computer related problem, other than to talk in techo-babble.
Example: I would asked John but he's a gimp.

themole

a more trusted resource:

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50094676?query_type=word&queryword=gimp&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=4&search_id=YolN-RLQEyl-4988&hilite=50094676

Goodshape

ruprect wrote:

I think it very strange that "the gimp" did actually have a gimp leg? do you not?

Honestly didn't notice. I was too busy finding it strange that he was sleeping in a box in a full gimp-suit.

Not arguing with you though, because it's a ridiculously stupid point to raise. Either way the word is used NOW to mean "a nutter dressed in the S&M costume". New words and meanings appear all the time. It doesn't make them any less valid.

Fifteen years ago you may have had a point.

Terry

ruprect wrote:

What is the dublin slang one? I NEVER heard it before pulp fiction which is 12 years old this year BTW so it is a long time back when I did first hear it.

I think it very strange that "the gimp" did actually have a gimp leg? do you not?

the Dublin one was just a general insult.
"shut up ye gimp" and so forth.

MorningStar

ruprect wrote:

did you think it meant that before watching pulp fiction? or had you even heard the term before it?

I did and the word was used in Dublin slang all the time. To me it meant somebody with a mask on when having sex. The Mask being the key more so than the s&m bit but it was implied.

I am not sure what you are saying about the word. Either way the English language does not have a central authority the closest is the Oxford English Dictionary. AS the language is very much alive new meaning to words can overrite existing meaning. Sweetheart was originally sweet tart which meant good hooker.

Ignorance is a word I beleive is used incorrectly by most especially those from outside Dublin. THay use it to mean rude intetionally rather than somebody who is ill educated in maners.

Gimp has more than one meaning too

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=0&Keyword=gimp&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG&NLD=1&FRA=1&DEU=1&ITA=1&ESP=1&v=40087513

Goodshape

Not to mention The Gimp.

ruprect

Goodshape wrote:

Not arguing with you though, because it's a ridiculously stupid point to raise.

It is not stupid, I am pointing out the flaws in wikipedia and how commonly thought notions can be incorrect, which many people are demonstrating here to be the case.

I full accept that the term can be used like that, I think the origin of the definition should be pointed out. If it wasnt I wouldnt even mind so much, but to mention pulp fiction and not mention that it was the actual origin is misleading and wrong as far as I'm concerned. I think it is interesting that one film could change the common meaning of a word

julep wrote:

the Dublin one was just a general insult.
"shut up ye gimp" and so forth.

I hear it all the time like I said. But never before 1994

MorningStar wrote:

Gimp has more than one meaning too

I knew that too. Wikipedia has other defintions. But in pulp fiction it was referring to his lame leg. If they had said "bring out the cripple" the name would not have caught on and changed meaning. It is the fact that "gimp" has a nice ring to it, another 4 letter word whos real meaning was not really known before so was used. Just like **** really means a bunch of sticks, amongst other meanings.

Goodshape

ruprect wrote:

I full accept that the term can be used like that, I think the origin of the definition should be pointed out.

The why don't you edit the page to include the note?

Binomate

It's great for getting an idea of what happened. However you must always take in to account that it might not be accurate. You need to be willing to do a bit of research as well if you want as close to accurate as possible.

RefulgentGnomon

p2pnet.net wrote:

Wikipedia or Wackypedia?
The Wikipedia is being vandalised so frequently that a volunteer army of nearly 1,000 supporters has been recruited to police and correct the entries, say reports.


UK prime minister Tony Blair was given the new middle names of Whoop-de Doo, "Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, makes surprise visits to Ilford instead of Iraq and Robbie Williams earns his millions eating pet hamsters," says the Times Online. "Oh, and David Beckham was a Chinese goalkeeper in the 18th century."


Last week Blair's 19-page entry was changed as many as 25 times a day, says the story.

Is the Wikipedia, "one of the world's great co-operative ventures" or merely, "just another unreliable website full of mistakes, misconceptions and misleading entries?" - asks the Independent.


It goes on, "Alarm bells rang last month when newspapers in Massachusetts discovered that the staff of Congressman Marty Meehan had polished his biography by, for instance, deleting his long-abandoned promise to serve only four terms and praising his 'fiscally responsible' voting record.


"Detective work by Wikipedia found that other offices on Capitol Hill had engaged in skulduggery - not all of them with flattering results, such as the false reference to Oklahoma's Tom Coburn being voted 'most annoying senator'.


And late last year Today journalist John Seigenthaler's Wiki entry said he was involved in the assassination of US President John Kennedy.


The Times story has Jimmy Wales, Wiki founder and president, saying, "I thought it would be overrun with idiots but there are far more people doing good than those who try to be harmful."

There's always one, or in this case, probably thousands!

ruprect

Goodshape wrote:

The why don't you edit the page to include the note?

I was going to a few months back. I might soon.

MorningStar

ruprect wrote:

It is not stupid, I am pointing out the flaws in wikipedia and how commonly thought notions can be incorrect, which many people are demonstrating here to be the case.

I full accept that the term can be used like that, I think the origin of the definition should be pointed out. If it wasnt I wouldnt even mind so much, but to mention pulp fiction and not mention that it was the actual origin is misleading and wrong as far as I'm concerned. I think it is interesting that one film could change the common meaning of a word


I hear it all the time like I said. But never before 1994

That appears to be your view only. There are a lot of words that have their origin in film or tv series. "Going comando" Even general talk like "Good thinking Batman" THat is what language is about. Room 101 is a term used from 1984 so is the expression "big brother is watching you" and thus we get two tv shows using these phases to name their shows.

Gimp was in common use in Dublin when I grew up in the 70s and 80s.

RefulgentGnomon

Similar article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036558,00.html

On Blair:

Article wrote:

He was briefly accused of having posters of Adolf Hitler on his bedroom wall as a teenager.

:v:

Terry

the way i see it is if you're going to edit a page to include totally untrue information, at least try to be clever about it.
edit something really obscure with information that cannot be either confirmed or denied. there is no point in screwing around with pages that are going to be fixed within minutes.

ruprect

MorningStar wrote:

That appears to be your view only.

Doesnt mean it is wrong, just like the other comments of 29 people and 1 expert. Is there anybody else who can honestly say they thought gimp specifically referred to a S&M weirdo before pulp fiction? and please remember it is 12 years old

Did anybody watching the film for the first time expect that guy to appear when they said "bring out the gimp", was that really what you were expecting?

MorningStar wrote:

Gimp was in common use in Dublin when I grew up in the 70s and 80s.

I had heard the word before, but not as a term of abuse. I am sure it could have been used before, but in the same way as cripple, spa, mongo. i.e. referring to a disability, the word is a catchy abusive term. But I do not think it was used as a term of abuse referring to S&M before pulp fiction.

As I said I would love to see a pre-pulp fiction slang dictionary with it listed.

MorningStar

ruprect wrote:

As I said I would love to see a pre-pulp fiction slang dictionary with it listed.

I think you have a problem understanding what slang means. I and others have said they believed it to be in use prior to pulp fiction in tha same sense. Your only claim to be right is that you don't remember it in use that way prior to Pulp Fiction. It is your belief that it was first used in this sense in Pulp Fiction and unless you have done other reseach all you are using as proof is your lack of knowledge not research. You only claim this is wrong so the burden of proof is on you. So it doesn't make you right or wrong just absolutely no reason to believe your theory.

I think you should try and watch Balderdash and Piffle on BBC as they explain how words an investigation into origins works.

Terry

As I said I would love to see a pre-pulp fiction slang dictionary with it listed

i doubt you're going to see that.

both morningstar and i were aware of the term before pulp fiction.
i had a friend who was interested in S&M when he was 15 and that was how i knew the word in it's sexual context.

it may be just a regional thing. Dublin is a big place and the meaning of certain slang words can differ greatly from town to town.

i remember hearing the word "langer" from the mouth of a girl from Galway and that was long before Cork had claimed that word as its own.*

*don't want to hear an arguement from the people of Cork about the origin of that word. this was just the way i had heard it. other people may have had different experiences.

AngryBadger

It's handy as a starting poing, but you really want to check anything you plan on using with other sources. as was said, if you're using it to write your thesis you'll be flipping burgers in McDonalds. But when I'm trowling through thousands of articles trying to find just THAT ONE, Wikipedia can sometimes help me narrow the search substantially. I guess I mean that I use it to narrow my aperture of analysis for the peer-reviewed databases like ScienceDirect, and PubMed

Hobbes

MorningStar wrote:

I think it can be usefull for a starting point but there are obviously some people having a laugh and or just stupid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_O%27Donnell_%28Irish_singer%29

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50887225#post50887225

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_O%27Donnell_%28Irish_singer%29

If you check the history you will see it was removed within a day.

jester77

It's an excellent reference source but I wouldn't rely on it. The last time used it I was researching for information about Russian history. I was using the English and German wikipedia and there were a lot of contradictory information and alot of dates were not the same between the 2.

ruprect

MorningStar wrote:

Your only claim to be right is that you don't remember it in use that way prior to Pulp Fiction.

That is not the main reason I have my doubts. The main reason is that the guy in the film HAS A GIMP. Is it a pure coincidence that "the gimp" had a gimp? do you not think it is possible they called him "the gimp" due to him having a gimp? Like I said before if he was called "the cripple" this wouldnt have happened, but since the real meaning of gimp in the film was unknown people presumed that a gimp was not a person with a lame leg but a freak in an S&M suit, the fact he was a freak in a suit was more noticeable than his limping leg.

Terry

that sounds like something you should take up with quinten tarantino.

senordingdong

Wikipedia is single handedly getting me through college.

Manic Moran

The more based on science or history it is, the more accurate it is liable to be. When researching politics or current affairs, have a large saltshaker.

NTM

Our man in Havana

Its fun when vandalism goes unnoticed for weeks.