Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Penguin on June 14, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
-
Hey guys,
I've been wondering, what do you think of Wikipedia? I know my stance on the issue, but I don't want to muddy the waters, so to speak. Here are some pros and cons to the site:
Pros:
Absolutely massive, there is an article on just about everything you can think of
Anyone can add information, or remove it if it is incorrect
Constant updates and no need to wait for annual revisions
Instant, free access from around the globe in at least fifteen major languages
Cons:
Not all articles are equally well written
Some articles are inaccurate, some blatantly poorly so
Vandalism on unprotected pages
Depends on having an internet connection
What are your feelings on it? Do you think that it should become the de facto scholarly information source or removed entirely from scholarly works? Should it be easier, harder or impossible for the average person to edit the site? Furthermore, do you edit or donate to it yourself?
-Penguin
-
Wikipedia is a great place to start research, it should never be an end all answer for citing sources though.
-
I personally love it, it's great for giving you basic information right away, and (for the most part) it actually sources its information, which in turn provides additional reading, which is very useful.
-
Teachers at my school dont recomend it. my English teacher i believe this year said it was almost as accurate as the Britannica, but i find that hard to believe since anyone can add/remove information. not a bnig fan of using it as an end-all im done with my research site, but sometimes its the only way.... :uhoh
-
i just refer to this "disputed" article regarding wikipedia's reliability...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)
knowing that between any number of written works on the same subject there can exist discrepancies...an anonymously editable online source with innumerable reference links that cannot be checked for accuracy or existence is not a valid source for academic reference.
-
Paul Revere rode to Lexington ringing bells to warn the British that someone was coming to take their guns away.
:neener:
wrongway
-
Paul Revere rode to Lexington ringing bells to warn the British that someone was coming to take their guns away.
:neener:
wrongway
except it wasnt JUST Paul..hada couple buddies with him... Paul was theo nly one to make it. as far as their names, I'm drawing a blank.
-
Whaddyaknow. It's accurate about something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_potato
-
except it wasnt JUST Paul..hada couple buddies with him... Paul was theo nly one to make it. as far as their names, I'm drawing a blank.
Something in the news recently involving a bus tour and Boston that I will not mention as I will get Skuzzyfied.
I've probably already gone too far.
:bolt:
wrongway
-
maybe but funny as hell Wrgway :)
-
Something in the news recently involving a bus tour and Boston that I will not mention as I will get Skuzzyfied.
I've probably already gone too far.
:bolt:
wrongway
i'd hit it...just sayin. :devil
that whole thing was quite amusing to follow...a few historians even got a chuckle out of it.
-
Wikipedia is a great place to start research, it should never be an end all answer for citing sources though.
+1
Very quick and easy to get a bearing on which direction to research.
-
Cons:
Not all articles are equally well written
Some articles are inaccurate, some blatantly poorly so
I hate to nitpick here, but that's not well written either.
Anyway, Wikipedia has it's uses in everyday life but keep it separated from academia when possible.
-
except it wasnt JUST Paul..hada couple buddies with him... Paul was theo nly one to make it. as far as their names, I'm drawing a blank.
He's referring to a historical boo-boo made by Sarah Palin.
-
I hate to nitpick here, but that's not well written either.
Blatantly poorly so, I might add.
-
He's referring to a historical boo-boo made by Sarah Palin. In an attempt to keep their idol infallible, many Palin supporters edited Paul's page to make Palin's statement appear 100% correct. Quite hilarious, I'll try to find a link to the segment Stephen Colbert did on it. :rofl
:rofl
-
Teachers at my school dont recomend it. my English teacher i believe this year said it was almost as accurate as the Britannica, but i find that hard to believe since anyone can add/remove information.
You have to consider that while a standard Encyclopedia article is written by one person (albeit generally one who is considered an expert on that subject), a Wikipedia article is (generally, of course it depends on the article) the fruit of the labor of dozens of people with precariously low amounts of life, whose hobby it is to literally research and edit Wikipedia articles.
Because of the way it's all advertized, I don't think people realize that much, if not most of Wikipedia is written and edited by people with accounts (there's a lot on Wikipedia that you can't do without an account, and there's a lot even that you can only edit with special permissions), and it's moderated by people who take the job of moderation very seriously (e-peen), and that there are even bots in place (I think? I know some wikis have these) that revert vandalism instantly if it's detected. It's all very well cited, and if you visit one of the discussion pages on a 'more important' article you'll even find arguments over semantics and very specific/borderline silly things.
Wikipedia isn't a bunch of anonymous people randomly farting out articles, it's actually a very tedious thing, and more reliable than people give it credit for. It's still not, of course, the be all end all of sources, but you're better off going to Wikipedia than some random website where someone can write whatever they want.
-
lol
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/stephen-colbert-proves-sarah-palins-paul-revere-theory-right-28014
-
lol
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/stephen-colbert-proves-sarah-palins-paul-revere-theory-right-28014
The political nature of Colbert's show (though completely for the sake of humour) has me fearing the ban hammer. Careful with that post, as brilliant as it may be.
-
Wikipedia is a great place to start research, it should never be an end all answer for citing sources though.
Yep. Sums it up nicely.
-
Penguin,
Wiki is a good START to research if you are interested in something. Your summary of Pros/cons is pretty good!
I would NEVER trust a SOLE source of information as gospel. Call that the scientist/skeptic in me....but if you are casually looking for something of interest to you then by all means use it. My ONLY caveat is that you research as many options available to you before making a decision.
The internet, or "interweb" LOL as my buddy calls it, has TONS of information; some good, some bad.
In the end, good research/scientific means prove to be a good methodology of forming an argument.
Remember....and this will serve everyone in life.....put away personal biases, pre-determined thoughts, and preferences.......go into ALL things with an open mind and then come up with your own conclusions. There are MANY examples in science/history when biases have "clouded" judgment and "scientific outcomes"......
Bottom line, use all your resources to help formulate an argument in your own mind....however, be open to any and all contradictions to your opinions and be ready to perhaps change your opinions based on such information!
:)
-
Wikipedia is a great place to start research, it should never be an end all answer for citing sources though.
Spot on.
I've yet to have a college professor allow a source cited from wiki, yet most of them do agree that it can be a good place to start researching.
-
Ever since the standard of heavy resource citation was adopted by the Wiki community I find it very resourceful and reliable (if you verify the citations).