Author Topic: For those of you who used Wikipedia to help shore up your arguement: (Read 1782 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #45 on:** March 09, 2007, 08:29:58 AM »

Coshy, of course it can't be relied on to be 100% accurate. Neither can Brittanica, Scientific American, or any newspaper or textbook you could pick.

A scientific study done comparing Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Brittanica found the two were very similar in accuracy. Brittanica had a very slight edge on # of errors per article, and Wikipedia edged out Brittanica in depth of coverage.

Also, studies have shown that statistically, wrong information or vandalism has a shelf life measured in the minutes if not seconds. There are exceptions, of course, especially in subjects that are obscure, but arguing that "because someone could potentially vandalize it, it's useless" is like saying "because a car has the potential to crash, nobody should ever drive it".

Regarding the 'you can't cite Wikipedia as a primary source', well der, you're not supposed to cite an encyclopedia as a primary source, paper or electronic. It's a tool to get you started on learning something, or to get you a quick answer. But a primary source is always going to be something else.

BTW · « **Reply #46 on:** March 09, 2007, 08:41:23 AM »

Wikipedia is great to keep up with those 60's pop stars

I saw that commercial with the song "Catch the Wind" and did a Wikipedia search on Donovan. Its a good read - a lot of information there.

I wouldn't use it as a source, but one can easily kill an afternoon browsing it.

Mini D · « **Reply #47 on:** March 09, 2007, 10:07:28 AM »

Put into perspective, wikipedia is more accurate than 99.9999% of the rest of the internet and 100% of the people posting here.

Bronk · « **Reply #48 on:** March 09, 2007, 10:10:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Put into perspective, wikipedia is more accurate than 99.9999% of the rest of the internet and 100% of the people posting here.

Especially on drm issues.

Bronk

Airscrew · « **Reply #49 on:** March 09, 2007, 12:58:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Regarding the 'you can't cite Wikipedia as a primary source', well der, you're not supposed to cite an encyclopedia as a primary source, paper or electronic. It's a tool to get you started on learning something, or to get you a quick answer. But a primary source is always going to be something else.

exactly... back in the old days when we used to go to the library and actually use books to do research I remember papers I had to write for History, Goverment, and Lit and almost all of them had requirements to use 3 or more sources and list your sources...

Ripsnort · « **Reply #50 on:** March 09, 2007, 01:02:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Put into perspective, wikipedia is more accurate than 99.9999% of the rest of the internet and 100% of the people posting here.

I highly doubt the former, and I your definately wrong on the latter. I'm always right. Just ask me.

DoctorYO · « **Reply #51 on:** March 13, 2007, 11:57:15 AM »

Quote

I highly doubt the former, and I your definately wrong on the latter. I'm always right. Just ask me.

So says the dude with 21k+ posts....

Very Niiiiice.....

DoctorYo

PS: You people complaining over theological credentials is oxymoronic.... (who gives such credentials, the gods...)

RightF00T · « **Reply #52 on:** March 13, 2007, 02:46:28 PM »

Quote

"I don't think this incident exposes any inherent weakness in Wikipedia, but it does expose a weakness that we will be working to address,

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #53 on:** March 16, 2007, 05:06:31 PM »

If you think they have a big lib bias, go read the Wiki NRA entry.

Seems fair enough to me.

Chairboy · « **Reply #54 on:** March 16, 2007, 05:49:18 PM »

Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association