Wikipedia

berengar

Ok im sorry if this is in the wrong area but I have a question about Wikipedia.org

It's come to my attention that users can edit pages with immediate effect !!

(i know some are locked because of vandalism) but the majority aren't,
I know this is a great idea as in it lets users combine their info, but does it
not make the site unreliable ?

biko

It does, but the idea is that if you put incorrect information in it will be corrected by someone else more knowledgeable.

monkeyfudge

There was an independent study done comparing it's acuracy to the Encylopedia Britanica.

They sampled 42 science related articles on the same subjects from both and found 163 mistakes in Wikipedia and 121 mistakes in Encyclopedia Britanica. So Wikipedia does seem to be about as acurate as a regular encylopedia, except it's free, easy to search.. and a lot, lot bigger.

rubadub

Wikidepia is a gigantic wall in a public toilet. Treat all info like you read it in a stinking jacks. In the future when we get smells over the net, there should be a wicked bang of piss and puke when you visit the site, just to remind you.

[Jackass]

They shouldn't have done the study on scientific things...as anybody who rights that stuff is obviously well versed in that field or they wouldn't bother their arse.

They should ave done it on general knwledge topics...then you would see the true extent of wikipedias inaccuracy.

Did you know the great wall of china only has 1 atm in it but 10 KFC's!??

Goodshape

Wikipedia is a fantastic idea, well executed.

It's not perfect but few things are.. it's still an invaluable source of free and upto date information on virtually any topic imaginable. The nature of the Internet is that anyone can upload and update information.. wikipedia is mearly an extension of this.

The information on it should be treated as all information should be treated.. nothing is 100% certin until you see it with your own eyes and touch it with your own hands. But the beauty of Wikipedia is that if you do find some false information you can correct it for those who come after you. The nay-sayers seem more concerned with pointing out these mistakes than utilising the power they have to change them.

I Wikipedia.

[Jackass]

Don't get me wrong, wikipedia is great and all and i agree with everything you say, i just wouldn't trust it entirely, everything would be double checked if i was doing a project or whatever...

Goodshape

Everything should always be double checked if you were doing a project or whatever. No matter what your initial source was.

[Jackass]

ok, thanks.

TheVan

Monkeyfudge wrote:

There was an independent study done comparing it's acuracy to the Encylopedia Britanica.

They sampled 42 science related articles on the same subjects from both and found 163 mistakes in Wikipedia and 121 mistakes in Encyclopedia Britanica. So Wikipedia does seem to be about as acurate as a regular encylopedia, except it's free, easy to search.. and a lot, lot bigger.

It should be noted, that there is an article in the current issue of the Economist which identifies several problems with that study. Wikipedia may not be all that accurate. Then again, its there as a handy, fast and dirty way to get information, not something to base your college essays/work projects on!

mountainyman

Goodshape wrote:

Everything should always be double checked if you were doing a project or whatever. No matter what your initial source was.

Look up Skangers and Knocklyon on Wikipedia.
Neither is appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
MM

astrofool

As said (and having recently completed a thesis), it's a great jumping off point for research, but EVERYTHING should be independently verified, preferably from the likes of citeseer, google print or portal.acm.org

Never ever ever use it as a reference for anything serious (other than perhaps a study on wikipedia).

Goodshape

mountainyman wrote:

Look up Skangers and Knocklyon on Wikipedia.
Neither is appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
MM

/looks up Skangers
/notices two blaringly obvious notices at the top of the page stating that the article may not be suitable for an encyclopaedia and asking for public opinion on the issue

Still though, it's a bit of a joke article but I think that's sort of obvious. I don't see what harm it does.

whats wrong with the Knocklyon article?

segadreamcast

It's banned as a reference in DCU's Law and Gov school - infact, I believe you get an automatic zero for citing it. That should tell you how highly regarded it is.

secret_squirrel

TheVan wrote:

It should be noted, that there is an article in the current issue of the Economist which identifies several problems with that study. Wikipedia may not be all that accurate. Then again, its there as a handy, fast and dirty way to get information, not something to base your college essays/work projects on!

You should also see the coverage of the issue that theregister.com has done.

Basically Brittanica has refuted most of the errors, and the Journo's from nature magazine methods have been called into question. Moreso they are also refusing to open their research to public scrutiny.

Basically (according to el reg) the Editor of Nature is a real wikifiddler.

aidan_walsh

NoelRock wrote:

It's banned as a reference in DCU's Law and Gov school - infact, I believe you get an automatic zero for citing it. That should tell you how highly regarded it is.

By DCU.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

its fine as a bit of qick reference, but not eally much else

Esel

There are volunteer editors who review edits - not immediately though.

The concept is brilliant, and is used on a lot of major company intranets (where muppet edits are not a problem).

Esel

sean_keevey wrote:

its fine as a bit of qick reference, but not eally much else

If you posted that on Wikipedia, you'd be glad if someone edited the spelling quickly!

segadreamcast

aidan_walsh wrote:

By DCU.

Yes. Pardon me, is there something wrong with DCU?

aidan_walsh

NoelRock wrote:

Yes. Pardon me, is there something wrong with DCU?

Nothing that I know of. But you seemed to imply that because they don't like it, its generally and widely frowned upon.

I believe you get an automatic zero for citing it. That should tell you how highly regarded it is.

segadreamcast

Oh no, not generally - but in academic circles, from what I'm lead to believe, it's hated. Especially in Political Science, as opinions tend to seep into a lot of Wikipedia articles...

Sorry about that - I should probably have said "That should tell you how highly regarded it is in academic circles". Makes a great starting point for some things though, and I love having a casual browse for obscure facts on it (I have wikipedia's random page set to my homepage).

netwhizkid

Wikipedia is inaccurate in many things I have heard, I use it alot still and have yet to come across a piece of info I find myself fighting with though. I have it in my quick search links in firefox along with ebay and a few more tis quite handy.

Goodshape

NoelRock wrote:

It's banned as a reference in DCU's Law and Gov school - infact, I believe you get an automatic zero for citing it. That should tell you how highly regarded it is.

As most good informaton on Wikipedia includes links to where the information was obtained and a list of reccommended further reading on the subject, which in turn could be cited as a reference, I'd say this is fair enough.

If I told you that the world is flat, because I read it in scientific paper X, I'd hope you wouldn't put me down as a reference (the correct reference would be scientific paper X, which I'd expect you'd want to browse through yourself to make sure I'm not full of it). Wikipedia should be treated in the same way. Doesn't mean it's anywhere near useless.

NoelRock wrote:

Especially in Political Science

Oh, I'd agree with that actually. Politics on Wikipedia can get messy.. although that's hardly unique to Wikipedia. I feckin hate politcs anyway

segadreamcast

Goodshape wrote:

As most good informaton on Wikipedia includes links to where the information was obtained and a list of reccommended further reading on the subject, which in turn could be cited as a reference, I'd say this is fair enough.

If I told you that the world is flat, because I read it in scientific paper X, I'd hope you wouldn't put me down as a reference (the correct reference would be scientific paper X, which I'd expect you'd want to browse through yourself to make sure I'm not full of it). Wikipedia should be treated in the same way. Doesn't mean it's anywhere near useless.



Oh, I'd agree with that actually. Politics on Wikipedia can get messy.. although that's hardly unique to Wikipedia. I feckin hate politcs anyway

Well most journals cite other reports too - so this isn't necessarily the reason why it's frowned upon....

EDIT:It's the politics thing that seems to be the clincher (Did you edit that last bit, or did I miss it the first time :P?)

Goodshape

NoelRock wrote:

Well most journals cite other reports too - so this isn't necessarily the reason why it's frowned upon....

If that's not why it's frowned upon then I don't really see the point. Well, I do, I just don't agree with it. Surly one citation is as good as another.

Anyway, good or bad it's a fairly new resource I suppose. There's no real reason why an established institute like UCD should accept it straight off the bat.

They'll learn in time

NoelRock wrote:

(Did you edit that last bit, or did I miss it the first time :P?)

Yea, edited. I was still writing while you posted it.

dead air

sean_keevey wrote:

its fine as a bit of qick reference, but not eally much else

Exactly, when i need to bring myself up to speed on something that I need to have a basic understanding of, wikipedia is the first place I visit. I would never cite it for anything college related.

Trust but verify.

mloc

it's a fantastic reference for computer related stuff. i always find myself looking something up and before i know it i have 10+ tabs open from links i found on the page.

it's almost addictive.

but being honest, i find 99% of the stuff on it too basic for anything relevant to my college work.