Wikipedia. So...how accurate is it?

Originally Posted by LeHah

If one person was to write a convincing, well spoken edit that Harrison Ford is a closet homosexual, and then 10 people made sure that the edit would stay there - it becomes fact to someone else who reads it without a grain of salt.

That won't happen, Wikipedia is ANAL about citations.

Originally Posted by LeHah

So then - why have it at all? If its to be used as ANY type of reference - not for school papers but to find even the most asinine subjects and is prone to being askewed by e-jerks, what good is it?

Because a source of information doesn't have to be an official reference to be useful. The official rates of innacuracies in Wikipedia are about the same as those of Encyclopedia Brittanica ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...d_in_Wikipedia ) which makes it a reliable source for casual browsing. Really, the number of times I've used Wikipedia for non-academic research far outnumbers the times I've used it as a starting point for an essay. Through hyperlinking, I've often been able to get a deep understanding of the broad context surrounding a single entry, which is incredibly useful. Yes, e-vandalism is a problem, but you take risks when you read any text. Just because it's not open source doesn't mean the author is telling the truth.

And still, Wikipedia often provides citations for its facts, which most often can be used for academic purposes.

Quote:

Do you people LIKE being lied to constantly?

Is this some sort of crude red herring or am I misunderstanding you? I don't remember evidence that there is not a single bit of truth on Wikipedia. Constantly?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Somehow - people on the internet (which in and of it's self is an extremely dubious thing best left for a seperate discussion) aren't the smartest, most talented or best equipt people to say anything about any subject ever.

Settle down

You're a person on the internet. Cynicism is a belief but not an argument.

Quote:

Why? James Pearson Assfuck of Bounty Hive, Montana can pretend he's Professor Bordem Q Faggot and stick 3,000 facts about any one given subject to hide any one given lie. That single lie totally destroys whatever validity the subject has because who's to say someone is to find it?

Aside from the blatant homophobism suggested by his pseudonym, Mr. Assfuck will quickly have to provide sources for his information before his "facts" are found to be erroneous and deleted. That's partly my attraction to wikipedia. It doesn't matter if he pretends to be the President of France or a high school teacher, because no one can verify his identity, he will have to provide evidence to support the claims hemakes.

Quote:

How many times does someone edit an entry and have some asshole take it down because it slanders what they like? I've heard of that happening all too often on sources about Hans Zimmer or James Horner. Say whatever fact you like about a subject - if some shitheel on Wiki disagrees with it, they can delete it.

You might want to check out what's happening to the page on the Armenian genocide as we speak. As you may know, the validity of the "genocide," although significantly supported by factual evidence, is disputed (particularly amongst Turkish scholars). The reason I want to you to take a look at it (and its talk page) is so you realize how much more complicated the issue is when "slander" is disputed. The Turks aren't really happy that such a page even exists, it's interesting to see how the Wikipedia community is dealing with it.

Quote:

In the short run, all you are is a mouthpeice of ignorance and stupidity by even glancing at that site.

For your own sake I will ignore any ad hominem/ poisening of the well on your part. I'll do my best, but it's usually more convincing when you use proper rhetoric, especially when we the subject of the conversation is "validity" .

Quote:

Information doesn't have to be TRUE for it to be USED. What are you, Sean McCormack? You going to tell me that theres UMD somewhere?

Straw man fallacy

Quote:

Citing Wikipedia about the validity of Wikipedia is like asking a rapist if he's guilty.

My citation wasn't about Wikipedia's validity , it was a verifiable source. You have no excuse; the encyclopedia Britannica is available for you to verify the facts on the page.

Quote:

That aside, casual browsing in the way you paint it is fine if you enjoy being lied to. If thats your thing, fine - but I don't tolerate it, so if you want to go on being an uneducated ponce, don't tout it here is all.

Evidence is your friend, particularly when you are criticizing Wikipedia for lacking evidence. You haven't provided significant evidence that Wikipeda consistantly spread "lies" and false information.

Quote:

No, it isn't -- this is empty Lunix jerk rhetoric, a clear example of people taking a term that has nothing to do with their project because they think it sounds smart.

I don't think so. Your comment suddenly brought "constistent lying" into the argument when the original subject was about validity; that sounds like a red herring to me. My concern isn't really appearing intelligent. I'm confident enough in my rhetoric that I can use it without flaunting it.

Quote:

The Wikipedia isn't a form of peer review at all. When you submit an academic paper for peer review, it's actually reviewed by the acknowledged, accredited experts *before* publication. The Wikipedia does none of this -- it publishes without any sort of review at all, and it in no way shape or form guarantees that your writing will be reviewed by experts.

I understand, but just because a paper is not peer review does not mean it is a lie, especially when it cites all its sources which are themselves peer reviewed. You seem to keep ignoring that most pages on Wikipedia do that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Freelance Wolf

If you're looking for more casual information, like wanting to know the list of every single Pokémon to date, for example, then Wiki is a pretty darn good source, but I'd never use it for actual research. Go get an encyclopedia for those.

I still disagree. Never cite wikipedia, or paraphrase it, but it's a great tool for research because it has so many links to peer reviewed sources that you might not find through google. It's all about knowing how to use your tools.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.