Wikipedia, Downfall of Higher Education
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:59 pm
Kevin's Watch
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Wikipedia, Downfall of Higher Education
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:02 pm
Working on a thesis?
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:03 pm
True, just because some fool you never met types it in there don't mean it's so! As a former investigative (college) reporter always check at least three sources...
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:15 pm
Actually, I was looking for information on sexual disease and injuries resulting from fetishes.Damelon wrote:Working on a thesis?
I didn't think references were required on Wikipedia, what with it being the everyman's encyclopedia.danlo wrote:True, just because some fool you never met types it in there don't mean it's so! As a former investigative (college) reporter always check at least three sources...
I thought references were just required for those high falutin' ivory tower pencil pusher types.
The ones who get kicked off wikipedia for correcting articles
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:31 pm
Wikipedia:
It's a neat way to find out exactly what some random person wrote about the term you just looked up... the truth through popular vote.
...and it must be true, because I read it on the Internet. Right?
It's a neat way to find out exactly what some random person wrote about the term you just looked up... the truth through popular vote.
...and it must be true, because I read it on the Internet. Right?
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:12 pm
It must be true because I'll get out my HEV and Crowbar and beat you until you agree with me!DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Wikipedia:
It's a neat way to find out exactly what some random person wrote about the term you just looked up... the truth through popular vote.
...and it must be true, because I read it on the Internet. Right?
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:51 pm
candy panties...
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:32 pm
Robert Anton Wilson wrote:Certainty is inversely proportionate to the number of encyclopedias you have.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:04 am
Well I dunno about solid rules anyways on wikipedia but there's always people pushing to get more citations in wikipedia articles.I didn't think references were required on Wikipedia, what with it being the everyman's encyclopedia.
But Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are so much better and so much more reliable as sources of information.
Some engaging articles on racism:
uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Segregation
uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Racism
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:46 am
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The other problem with Wikipedia is that experts have the same amount of weight as non-experts. There was a really big thing which I can neither remember which page it was about nor who the expert was, but it basically boiled down to someone repeatedly editing a wikipedia page so that the page displayed incorrect information about a chemical. A man whom I recall as being a professor who had written a book on chemistry, would edit the page to correct it, and consistantly his revisions were rolled back to the incorrect information, the incorrect version being prefered over his, because he was an expert.
There's a huge problem in Wikipedian politics where Expert is equated to Elitist, and the Powers That Be do what they can to get the Experts to leave.
There's a huge problem in Wikipedian politics where Expert is equated to Elitist, and the Powers That Be do what they can to get the Experts to leave.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:39 am
LOL I think my real bone was the relevancy thing. I didn't actually read about it but one of my friends was saying Jimbo jimmy wales said something like "lolwut notability not important" and other wikipedia people was like "lolwut your comment not notable n00b" and that got deleted.Emotional Leper wrote:The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The other problem with Wikipedia is that experts have the same amount of weight as non-experts. There was a really big thing which I can neither remember which page it was about nor who the expert was, but it basically boiled down to someone repeatedly editing a wikipedia page so that the page displayed incorrect information about a chemical. A man whom I recall as being a professor who had written a book on chemistry, would edit the page to correct it, and consistantly his revisions were rolled back to the incorrect information, the incorrect version being prefered over his, because he was an expert.
There's a huge problem in Wikipedian politics where Expert is equated to Elitist, and the Powers That Be do what they can to get the Experts to leave.
I mean they got rid of the mudkip joke for non-notability but have a list of every other stupid fucking pokemon in the stupid fucking pokedex. I hate "them" because they are lame
EDIT-I'm not rly huge wiki fan but I do like using it to look for some other sources, it was useful in this one thing I did on poetry b/c wikipedi alinked to a site of a professor's commentary on some of the poems I was working on. It was the only direct commentary on the poems I (or anyone else) could find.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:36 am
Wikipedia is split, really, into a few different types of article. There are, first of all, the ones that aren't finished and noone has enough interest to finish them. Then there are the sets that are both complete and kept up to date. Within that set, there are three types: the ones based around some geek fad or fandom, which are often badly written, unnecessarily detailed and not necessarily accurate; those that are regularly checked by a few persons who know what they are talking about and fix mistakes whenever they are added; and those that are patrolled by militant idiots, a group that overlaps heavily with the aforementioned fandom section but which extends outwards into just about any subject area you can think of.
The articles lucky enough to get someone knowledgable looking after them have been shown in studies to often be more reliable and up to date than the information in print encyclopaedias. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to tell which articles are being watched by which groups, which leads to another group that exists alongside all three and causes its own problems on accurate and inaccurate article alike: the wiki guideline nazis, who roam discussion threads demanding proper citation, second-hand "reliable" sources from print media--regardless of known reliability of existing sources--and the removal of any article about a person they've not heard of before for not being "notable".
The articles lucky enough to get someone knowledgable looking after them have been shown in studies to often be more reliable and up to date than the information in print encyclopaedias. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to tell which articles are being watched by which groups, which leads to another group that exists alongside all three and causes its own problems on accurate and inaccurate article alike: the wiki guideline nazis, who roam discussion threads demanding proper citation, second-hand "reliable" sources from print media--regardless of known reliability of existing sources--and the removal of any article about a person they've not heard of before for not being "notable".
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:31 pm
Wikipedia can be handy if you have absolutely no idea about something and just want a broad overview of what it's about (for instance, I recently looked up pikelets on there, simply because my girlfriend and I seem to be the only people in North Wales who've heard of them) but I'd never use it for anything academic. It can be worth checking out their sources though.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:09 pm
US Government censors Wikipedia
THE gospel of truth according to fake penis experts and nerds with chips on their shoulders, Wikipedia, has been edited by a Bush friendly member of the US House of Representatives.
Apparently the person was so concerned that people no longer bought the story about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that he or she took to tampering with the Whackypedia entry.
The entry was edited by someone with a House of Representatives IP address to make the bizarre claim that there was a link between the terrorist organisation al Qaeda and the Iraq government.
The fact that no link has ever been found, other on Whackypedia, has been a source of embarrassment for the Bush administration. Parts of the article which show proof that there were no links have been watered down by the use of the words "it is claimed". Thus a statement like "the sky is blue", has become the "sky is blue it is claimed".
There are also comments justifying Mr Bush's actions which at the time were made on the fiction that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The revision was made in 2005 but has only come to light now that software can tell who has been attempting to mess with your mind on Wackypedia.
One has to wonder how reliable an encyclopaedia is when it peddles government propaganda in an almost Orwellian manner and forces people who disagree with it to 'disappear' from history.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said teachers who refuse younger students access to the site are "bad educators".
Speaking at the Online Information conference at London's Olympia, he played down the long-running controversy over the site's authority.
He said young students should be able to reference the online encyclopaedia in their work.
Mr Wales said the site, which is edited by users, should be seen as a "stepping stone" to other sources.
As long as an article included accurate citations, he said he had "no problem" with it being used as a reference for younger students, although academics would "probably be better off doing their own research". link