| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2007 12:33:23 PM · #1 |
We often see Wikopedia references listed in DPC forums as if they are as reliable and authoritative as a regular encyclopedia. They aren't.
Do people realize that Wikopedia information is completely unedited for validity and content and that ANYONE at ANYTIME can update ANY entry with whatever they want to add or change and it will never be error checked?
You need to take what you read in Wikopedia with a big grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:37:17 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
...You need to take what you read in Wikopedia with a big grain of salt. |
At my age I tend to shy away from salt... apparently it isn't good for me... but I will be wary. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:38:38 PM · #3 |
I agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt, but EVERYTHING on the internet should be considered suspect. Hell, I think everything on DPC should be taken with a grain of salt!
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:41:02 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by _eug:
everything on DPC should be taken with a grain of salt! |
or a bucket, depending on who posted it :-D
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:42:48 PM · #5 |
No, but neither are most encyclopedias or resources. (ie: the number of errors in text books is mind-boggling)
Wikipedia is "insightful"
Message edited by author 2007-05-09 16:43:01. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:45:13 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:46:20 PM · #7 |
| I wouldn't ever cite it in a paper, but on most subjects it's not terrible. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:47:01 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by skylercall:
What is wikopedia? |
Exactly...... |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:47:37 PM · #9 |
If you use wikipedia as one of many sources, you probably won't go too far astray. Any researcher worth their salt is going to check their information from as many sources as they can.
As for Wikipedia entries *never* being error checked, that is simply not true. There is a standard and there are a large number of people that do their best to keep information as accurate as possible in most cases. Especially on larger, more detailed entries.
It is sad that a lot of people tend to use it as a personal bible, but that's their loss. The onus is on the people debating with such to be the more intelligent, informed, and diligently researched people ;)
Message edited by author 2007-05-09 16:48:06. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 12:48:24 PM · #10 |
What Steve says about anyone being able to edit is true. This is both a blessing and a curse. It means that a rogue editor may write total nonsense or untruth, but it also means that millions of other editors are there to correct.
I'd suggest reading this page and the related pages for Wikipedia's policy on material published on the site. It's extremely well thought-out.
In the end, I have found errata on Wikipedia, however I have also been astounded by the breadth and depth of verifiable information there. Truly a wonderful resource.
Edit:
Also see this editorial published in Nature in December 2005.
Message edited by author 2007-05-09 16:57:27. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 01:04:09 PM · #11 |
| Research means that one is making comparisons of available information. Wikopedia is only one resource. I find it invaluable, as a reference for a vast store of knowledge, facts, and yes, also one will find opinion and misconceptions. Join up and make it right. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 01:13:23 PM · #12 |
When I home schooled my daughter.... she was not allowed to use it as a resource...
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:09:51 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
No, but neither are most encyclopedias or resources. (ie: the number of errors in text books is mind-boggling)
Wikipedia is "insightful" |
Encyclopedias undergo editing, internal checking and must pass an approval process by their publishers before they are printed and released. They have to do that. After all, if it is full of errors then they won't be able to sell them.
Wikipedia goes through none of that, no editing whatsoever. No one oversees content for factual validity and nobody that enters data into it has a real financial interest or responsibly for insuring it is correct. Even if an expert in the field enters valid information and "insight", any idiot can go in change it.
That is a huge difference.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:16:20 PM · #14 |
For what it's worth, I'm a contributor to the WWII and Third Reich history articles, among others, and my sources are nothing but scholarly texts on the subjects, including Evans, Fest, Brown, and other bona fide experts in the field. Part of the stipulation about contributions to Wikipedia is that they must be made from reference material only, and not be based original research, and sources must be both cited and verifiable in order to be considered accurate. With thousands of contributors breathing down your neck about such things, and not being shy with the "citation needed" and "this article violates the non-pov [point of view] standard" markers, Wikipedia, for general purposes like references for this website, is an excellent resource.
Have you ever noticed that Google searches will inevitably yield Wikipedia articles at the top of the results page? Search for such historical figures and items at Google with one word, such as wwii, Hitler, or camera and see for yourself. This indicates how well-used Wikipedia is, and not the veracity of its articles, true, but it also indicates a vested interest in its authors (like me) to keep it real. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:17:59 PM · #15 |
Steve, the interesting thing is that "community editing" seems to be a much more robust process than one would think. To quote the editorial from Nature (one of the most respected peer-reviewed science journals in existence) that I linked above:
"...as an investigation on page 900 of this issue shows, the accuracy of science in Wikipedia is surprisingly good: the number of errors in a typical Wikipedia science article is not substantially more than in Encyclopaedia Britannica, often considered the gold-standard entry-level reference work." |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:21:15 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by theSaj:
No, but neither are most encyclopedias or resources. (ie: the number of errors in text books is mind-boggling)
Wikipedia is "insightful" |
Encyclopedias undergo editing, internal checking and must pass an approval process by their publishers before they are printed and released. They have to do that. After all, if it is full of errors then they won't be able to sell them.
Wikipedia goes through none of that, no editing whatsoever. No one oversees content for factual validity and nobody that enters data into it has a real financial interest or responsibly for insuring it is correct. Even if an expert in the field enters valid information and "insight", any idiot can go in change it.
That is a huge difference. |
What stands out is that you seem to be rather stuck on the negative aspects that *can* happen, instead of even considering any of the positive aspects and facts that are being brought up by a number of people here. As the others state, people that try and change things out of sheer idiocy or purposeful misinformation don't last. There is enough of a community there that does oversee things.
Is there some personal reason you have such a grudge against the resource? |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:22:06 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Wikipedia goes through none of that, no editing whatsoever. No one oversees content for factual validity... |
That isn't exactly accurate. It would be more accurate to say that Wikipedia does not go through a formal process of validation, requiring meetings, formalized fact-checking, and more meetings. Its process of validation is informal, and performed by millions of volunteers.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
and nobody that enters data into it has a real financial interest .... |
Agreed, it's more a love knowledge than a sense of financial interest. In my view, that makes its veracity even more likely.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Even if an expert in the field enters valid information and "insight", any idiot can go in change it. |
Yes, but the idiots' changes don't last very long. Minutes. Check the "history" pages of any controversial subject to see how quickly vandalized articles are reverted back to their original state. Vandalism is a fact at Wikipedia, because opening the doors to contributing to a collection knowledge lets in the jackasses, but the community is extremely vigilant, and vandalism of articles simply does not last, nor impact anyone's use of the encyclopedia. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:24:39 PM · #18 |
| My wife's parents have a set of encyclopedias that say "man will one day walk on the moon" ...... |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:26:36 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Jewellian:
My wife's parents have a set of encyclopedias that say "man will one day walk on the moon" ...... |
And THAT is the strength of resources such as Wikipedia. Information is about as up-to-date as one can get. Yes, it pays to use other sources, but for a starting place I use wikipedia for almost all my research.
Message edited by author 2007-05-09 18:26:48.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:28:15 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Have you ever noticed that Google searches will inevitably yield Wikipedia articles at the top of the results page? |
Then there's Googlepedia for Firefox which rewrite the Google results to put the relevant Wikipedia article in a second column format with the Google results. Hence why I quote Wikipedia quite often.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:28:26 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Jewellian:
My wife's parents have a set of encyclopedias that say "man will one day walk on the moon" ...... |
And THAT is the strength of resources such as Wikipedia. Information is about as up-to-date as one can get. Yes, it pays to use other sources, but for a starting place I use wikipedia for almost all my research. |
I start with wikipedia as well. Then I check for links and citations and footnotes. Then I click on those and check them. Then I find myself spending 3 hours reading 40 websites on the subject, and then I find myself with a headache. Then I wonder what the heck I was researching in the first place ;) |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:30:24 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Then I wonder what the heck I was researching in the first place ;) |
LMFAO, I'm sooo there. I definitely take advantage of multiple tabs when reading.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:33:22 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
I start with wikipedia as well. Then I check for links and citations and footnotes. Then I click on those and check them. Then I find myself spending 3 hours reading 40 websites on the subject, and then I find myself with a headache. Then I wonder what the heck I was researching in the first place ;) |
Man, I resemble that remark! Now, what was I researching just now?? |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:41:16 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Encyclopedias undergo editing, internal checking and must pass an approval process by their publishers before they are printed and released. They have to do that. After all, if it is full of errors then they won't be able to sell them. |
Who would know...???
In fact, school textbooks go through the same process. And are filled with a slew of errors. I recall reading where like one history textbook had over 400 errors.
*shrug*
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 02:56:10 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Artyste:
I start with wikipedia as well. Then I check for links and citations and footnotes. Then I click on those and check them. Then I find myself spending 3 hours reading 40 websites on the subject, and then I find myself with a headache. Then I wonder what the heck I was researching in the first place ;) |
Man, I resemble that remark! Now, what was I researching just now?? |
LMAO! My tip of the day - "open in new window", that way I always have the original subject I was looking up! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 10:54:46 AM EDT.
