The Truth According to Wikipedia

Have a watch of The Truth According to Wikipedia. It raises a lot of interesting and important points regarding Wikipedia.

Do you trust Wikipedia? Would/do you use it as a (reliable) source of knowledge and information? I don't trust the articles absolutely, I only use Wikipedia for its citations. I'll find something that I want to read about on Wikipedia, then I'll use the citations to find―hopefully more reliable―reading material.

Also, do you think that the model―that anybody can edit an online database of knowledge―is a good one? Can a database of "truth", that's open to all to edit, ever actually contain truth? Is much of the information in articles subjective and not objective?

Discuss!

Prof.Badass

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Have a watch of [URL="[URL]http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-truth-according-to-wikipedia/"]The[/URL] Truth According to Wikipedia[/URL]. It raises a lot of interesting and important points regarding Wikipedia.

Do you trust Wikipedia? Would/do you use it as a (reliable) source of knowledge and information? I don't trust the articles absolutely, I only use Wikipedia for its citations. I'll find something that I want to read about on Wikipedia, then I'll use the citations to find―hopefully more reliable―reading material.

Also, do you think that the model―that anybody can edit an online database of knowledge―is a good one? Can a database of "truth", that's open to all to edit, ever actually contain truth? Is much of the information in articles subjective and not objective?

Discuss!

I like the idea of wikipedia, and due to it's editableness and the need for citations i would actually trust it over an unfamilliar website that lacked these controls.

I'd guess most articles on wikipedia aren't even compatible with subjectivity / propaganda. The only mis-information you'd see on these articles would be if someone decided to mis-inform people purely for the sake of it. I think such cases of convincing mis-information are exceptionally rare (vandals generally make it obvious, for humourous effect).

While I do often see subjective opinions masqueraded as fact on wikipedia, It is quite easy to spot right away. One good thing about wikipedia is that it makes people question the validity of what they are reading, not just on wikipedia, but on all websites. Had it not been for wikipedia I do not think i would have ever questioned knowledge in this way.

The ease at which knowledge can be accessed on wikipedia is amazing, even if you do only use it for it's references.

If you don't like wikipedia then don't use it (i'd like to see you try).

Latchy

Do you trust Wikipedia? Would/do you use it as a (reliable) source of knowledge and information?

Wiki has be known to be incorrect with it's information which is updated by god knows who at times but still , a valuable fisrt reference for information .

AlmightyCushion

In fairness to wikipedia I've seen things reverted in a few minutes because they didn't have a citation. Saying that it's relatively easy to make a citation in some situations. All you need is your own website.

I don't trust wikipedia 100% but I do trust it to a certain degree. I wouldn't depend on it for a college thesis without further investigation.

lizzyvera

I love it. I love how I can get to pages on related topics so easily, especially topics which I didn't realise were related. I use it for scientific articles. I always check journals afterwards, but it is handy for writing introductions because it makes it easier to see the broader picture. For example, a reaction I was working on is also used to form self-healing paint for cars. I wouldn't have found out anything that "fun" from the papers I was working from.

I've also edited it to say people I don't like are notable members of the orange order, and it's always corrected by the next day :mad:

Pickled Tranee

well wikipeda dramatica is full of **** but its still funny

Earthhorse

It seems to me that critics of Wikipedia fail to understand it. They complain that anyone can edit an article yet neglect to mention that, more often than not, anyone doesn't. Near the end of that documentary Andrew Keen, who, though very articulate, is completely wrong, talks about the immense amount of "damage" done by Wikipedia, blogs and YouTube. He also talks about being a meritocracist, yet there is no merit to his claims. What damage is he talking about? Perhaps the blow it deal to his position as an "expert" in the old media and the ego that went with it.

Slugs

I think for a quick look and an overview of a subject, Wikipedia serves its purpose well. But as a SOURCE OF INFORMATION, then I'd recommend looking elsewhere. Organisations such as the CIA and FBI have been known to keep an eye on such sites and editing as needed. While it's understandable why, it does stop me from using Wiki as a source for anything. If I want a source I'll try this:

www.encyclopediadramatica.com

orourkeda

It's a useful starting point but it would but foolish to treat it as gospel.

Coriolanus

On the other hand, I absolutely treat it as gospel ie: the work of people I don't know, can't know and have no reason to trust are not operating according to ulterior motive.

Like the OP I usually use it to hunt through the citations and for some stuff it'll provide good rough summaries. I think the days are gone when anyone treats it as any kind of authority. There've been two many examples shown of corporate (and anti-corporate) interference etc.

miec

Hi Op

Excellent thread and thanks for the link / video re: wikipedia. I do use it, but I don't fully trust it. I personally have edited a couple of the articles on it where I knew the information was incorrect and I was unable to ignore the glaring errors. I like the fact that knowledge is accessible to everyone and it can be edited by anyone. The thing is with books, in particular with academia, it is also hard to define 'the truth' because one person writes an article or a book, they do said research, based on said bias or viewpoint, none of us are objective and they develop and work out their arguement based on that. Then someone else reads their work, argues against it and tries to disprove their thesis and so and so on.

When I research a topic I try to always be aware of my bias and where I am coming from and as such I read a variety of articles on the same subject and sift through them for some form of truth, basically if all of the different articles are singing from the same hymn sheet, you are getting closer to the truth. So my first port of call would be wikipedia, sometimes just to get an overview of the subject, it is easy and accessible at any time, I know it is not the gospel truth, but the fact that I am sceptical of it is a healthy thing, it encourages more questioning from the reader. I might check up some of the citations they give or a bibliography, read articles either online or via journals and books. I find subjects such as history or literature are particularly difficult to get to a 'truth', in actual fact many of the sciences struggle with getting the truth out there too, espicially when you consider the different research programmes of food, medication etc, where one party says for example red wine is good for you and another say its not. I think wikipedia is an extension of that. I often wonder though will we be overloaded with information and will specilisation be lost?