Wikipedia Not a Reliable Source my ass
Post #52
Randy wroteon August 29, 2009 at 5:32am
by the way, having a source of information that contains an error that can be changed is better than having one a source that contains errors, and cannot be changed. wikipedia can contain errors, just like any other source, yet it can also be edited, unlike many other sources.
Post #53
Nazar wroteon November 29, 2009 at 11:54am
The unreliability is definitely overstated. Wikipedia is a great source, if I ever wonder about something, I just hop over. All of my findings over the years have been accurate, and most of all easy to get; with wikipedia, it may take you less than a minute to get the article you want and narrow the subtopics down to the data you're looking for, it is eons beyond the clumsy other online encyclopedias I see around.
Post #54
Sherif wroteon December 3, 2009 at 1:09pm
Wikipedia is a good source and accurate enough. It's like open source software where everyone chips in so it's always updated; it has nice pictures, relevant links and most of all it's free.
Now, if it's really zero tolerance, extreme accuracy you want... I mean if you're building another space shuttle or splitting some atoms or something.. perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. Leave it to the rest of us!
Now, if it's really zero tolerance, extreme accuracy you want... I mean if you're building another space shuttle or splitting some atoms or something.. perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. Leave it to the rest of us!
Post #55
Charlie wroteon December 15, 2009 at 9:29pm
Most blatant attempts to manipulate data are just teenagers putting obvious phrases directly into the entry, rather than subtle manipulation of dates.
Luckily when I look up scientific concepts no lay person could easily fudge the concepts without making large mistakes...it would take a scientist to make the small minute adjustments to the entries that would make it look convincing.
Luckily when I look up scientific concepts no lay person could easily fudge the concepts without making large mistakes...it would take a scientist to make the small minute adjustments to the entries that would make it look convincing.
Post #56
David wroteon December 16, 2009 at 1:14am
Has any thought been put towards limiting edits by unknown people? A period of delay can be activated so that edits aren't immediate. This must have been discussed somewhere in wikipedia. Many website have this safety feature. How hard can it be to have it in wikipedia / wiktionary etc?
Post #57
Brett wroteon December 16, 2009 at 4:05am
wiki rules, I use it all time:)
Post #58
Randy wroteon December 16, 2009 at 12:24pm
David, by "unknown" you mean people who aren't registered? If you put a limit on edits by unregistered people then they could just make an account and continue their editing. Or no? Or what if the last edit was atrocious, yet you have to wait for the delay to expire? I haven't seen this on other sites before.
The bigger problem from Wikipedia's standpoint is that dynamic IP addresses are less common nowadays and banning an IP from editing doesn't really cut it. Mine changes every 24 hours.
The bigger problem from Wikipedia's standpoint is that dynamic IP addresses are less common nowadays and banning an IP from editing doesn't really cut it. Mine changes every 24 hours.
Post #59
David wroteon December 17, 2009 at 2:29am
I've been in many ney discussion areas where the moderator is the only person who green lights entrys to post. This means about 60% of discussion on facebook wouldn't make it onto page, as an example.
This feature requires patience on the part of users.It requires that people take time to think, order their expression, make reasonable arguments. It requires a large team of moderators who can quickly scroll through entries. Obviously facebook is free range and open, so moderating every post by multi millions isn't going to work. (reporting spam /obscenity / hate crime etc is after the fact & vital)
BUT as wikipedia is supposed to be a refined accurate source without personal crap, this way of working should be obvious. If I make a mistake in a page edit, (not discussion page) it could be picked up.Fair enuff?
This feature requires patience on the part of users.It requires that people take time to think, order their expression, make reasonable arguments. It requires a large team of moderators who can quickly scroll through entries. Obviously facebook is free range and open, so moderating every post by multi millions isn't going to work. (reporting spam /obscenity / hate crime etc is after the fact & vital)
BUT as wikipedia is supposed to be a refined accurate source without personal crap, this way of working should be obvious. If I make a mistake in a page edit, (not discussion page) it could be picked up.Fair enuff?
Post #60
Randy wroteon December 17, 2009 at 5:44am
I see what you're saying. At the moment if someone edits an article, the creator of the article is automatically notified of the edit. Having mods pre-approve edits would be quite difficult, as more than 1 mod would be needed per article (just in case the mod is biased). A system would also be needed to give mods only certain articles to monitor depending on their background (having 4 Israelis and 1 Palestinian moderate articles about Palestine isn't exactly a solution).
It probably would be a good idea, but it doesn't appear viable.
It probably would be a good idea, but it doesn't appear viable.
Post #61
David wroteon December 17, 2009 at 7:57pm
Wikipedia claims to have unbiased verifiable information. If moderators are accused of being biased, wikis reputation suffers.
I'm sure mods use calm clear thinking & can express their reasons for any edits. The Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't allow the public into the behind the scenes argy-bargy for its pages. The discussion pages are one of wikis great strengths. Inane & crack pot inputs can be deleted if needed. There's so many cranks out there....
I'm sure mods use calm clear thinking & can express their reasons for any edits. The Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't allow the public into the behind the scenes argy-bargy for its pages. The discussion pages are one of wikis great strengths. Inane & crack pot inputs can be deleted if needed. There's so many cranks out there....
Post #62
Irene wroteon December 21, 2009 at 2:50pm
Screw those haterz.....there just scared that a nonprofit organization would steal their customer....O_O and without wikipedia i cant do any of my homework. I just use wiki but in biblio i write some other "real" website
Post #63
Thomas wroteon December 22, 2009 at 11:43am
Some wikipedia stuff is silly, i admit
http://rpg-central.socialg
http://rpg-central.socialg
Post #64
Randy wroteon December 22, 2009 at 11:51am
how do i stop getting email alerts for this? is it possible to just stop getting alerts from this one discussion, leaving my other discussions unaffected? its getting lame.
Post #65
Lalreng wroteon December 22, 2009 at 8:16pm
there cannot be a 100% fool proof source on any information but Wikipedia is the closest anyone has got to achieving that
Post #66
Jason wroteon December 23, 2009 at 6:51am
It's a good first research source. Like everything, some basic cross checking and cross referencing would be good. Wiki is in the whole, a good reliable source.