| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2007 06:58:18 PM · #26 |
Strangely the validity of Wikipedia information is actually referenced in um...Wikipedia...
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 07:00:01 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Strangely the validity of Wikipedia information is actually referenced in um...Wikipedia... |
Note how unbiased, neutral, and objective the article on itself is. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 07:06:57 PM · #28 |
I think we need to expand this entry.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 07:08:29 PM · #29 |
On a different note.. there are no entries for DPChallenge.
People.. Someone is SLACKING. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 10:21:39 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by _eug:
I agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt, but EVERYTHING on the internet should be considered suspect. |
people should also remember that printed information (books, encyclopedias) can be just as bad as electronic prints. history is just as accurate as the person(s) who write it. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 10:24:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by _eug:
I agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt, but EVERYTHING on the internet should be considered suspect. |
people should also remember that printed information (books, encyclopedias) can be just as bad as electronic prints. history is just as accurate as the person(s) who write it. |
History is written by the winner, as they say?
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 10:28:13 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by crayon:
people should also remember that printed information (books, encyclopedias) can be just as bad as electronic prints. history is just as accurate as the person(s) who write it. |
I agree. The thing about Wikipedia that adds some credence to it is that it allows editing. If something is incorrect it will be updated. Of course, that also allows for vandalism too.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2007 10:30:42 PM · #33 |
Nothing wrong with looking to Wikipedia for information as long as you don't stop there :)
A story on the local news a few months ago was done as a reminder of that. A highschool teacher found the same blatant error in several of his students' papers on a certain subject and found they'd all gathered the majority of their information from Wikipedia.
He was able to use that example to teach his students the importance of researching multiple sources, rather than relying on one as THE answer. |
|
|
|
05/09/2007 10:33:12 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by _eug:
I agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt, but EVERYTHING on the internet should be considered suspect. |
people should also remember that printed information (books, encyclopedias) can be just as bad as electronic prints. history is just as accurate as the person(s) who write it. |
History is written by the winner, as they say? |
yes sir, i fully agree with that. |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 01:49:48 PM · #35 |
I never realized I opened a can of worms over Wikipedia. I'm sorry I brought it up.
What is at issue is the quality and accuracy of its data, questioned for the very reasons I originally cited.
It has been called "the grand experiment" because of the controversial idea that a free "open source" on-line encyclopedia could be created and maintained accurately by thousands of volunteers. The theory being that group consensus will insure accuracy. It has almost a religious following.
Nobody really took it seriously until, as kirbic mentioned, the respected journal Nature published an article suggesting that it has only about 25% more errors per article than the Encyclopedia Britannica and encouraged researchers to get more involved to help further improve its content.
Not surprising, Encyclopedia Britannica came out with a 20 page rebutal questioning the methods, analysis and conclusions of the Nature article and demanded an immediate retraction. Those interested in such things can read that here:
//corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
And Nature rebutted their rebutal:
//www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf
What's different about the Nature article is the journal itself wrote the research paper. That is NOT how scientific journals operate. What normally happens is that a scientist writes a research paper and sends it to a journal like Nature for publication. Then the journal sends the paper to experts in the field who peer review the article. It then goes through a series of revisions based on the peer review process before it gets published. The journal NEVER has a hand in writing the paper. In this way the publishing journal has no vested interest one way or the other regarding its conclusions.
If, as in this case, there is disagreement among experts about the conclusions of an article scientists will write additional papers supporting or refuting those conclusions based on their own research and then those papers are submitted for publication and go through the same peer review process before they are published.
That is how things are supposed to operate.
That is NOT what happened in this case. The journal internally commissioned the study and essentially had peer reviewers conduct their research and then they wrote the article publishing the results. That should NEVER happen.
What is even more shocking is that Nature is perhaps the most respected scientific journal in the world!
I could be wrong, and correct me if I am, but no "normal" major scientific study investigating the accuracy of Wikipedia has ever been conducted and gone through peer review and published.
Clearly there are some folks out to "get" Wikipedia. Daniel Brandt, Andrew Orlowski and "The Register" are the most visible. But there are continuing issues surrounding Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility. One of the latest surrounds the firing of one of their top reviewers fraudulently claiming credentials he does not have:
//blog.valuewiki.com/2007/03/05/essjay-leaves-wikia-and-wikipedia-over-controversy/
You folks can draw your own conclusions, but I think I'll continue to take what I see in Wikipedia with a big grain of salt! :)
|
|
|
|
05/10/2007 03:29:40 PM · #36 |
The problem with Wikipedia:
//www.xkcd.com/c214.html
splidge
|
|
|
|
05/10/2007 03:36:49 PM · #37 |
Personally, as a current college student, I haven't found wikipedia any more or less reliable than any other 'source' I'm allowed to use for my papers. So far, for whatever reason, I have not been permitted to use actual encyclopedias for my sources (nor wikipedia). But, when pulling 10 or so books from my local university library, I find the information tends to contradictory in nature. The way I like to use wikipedia is as just one more source in finding a consensus, one that often includes the historical evolution of a topic in addition to raw facts, which can often help explain the reason the books don't agree.
Short version - it's just about as reliable as anything else, and one should never use only one or two sources. |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 08:22:45 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Sunniee:
When I home schooled my daughter.... she was not allowed to use it as a resource... |
Not allowed? Was this your decision, or the decision of some external education entity? |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 08:46:54 PM · #39 |
I agree with everyone's comments. Especially splidge's!
I think the ability to judge the credibility and reliablity of an information source is an important skill that is lacking in many people today. And it doesn't seem to be taught effectively in schools. Just outlawing wikipedia or internet searches because they are "unreliable" doesn't teach this important skill. Indeed, I think wikipedia can be a good tool for learning how to evaluate information reliability since it has such a wide range from outright lies to very accurate. |
|
|
|
05/10/2007 08:53:26 PM · #40 |
I have used it for research papers occasionally, but never as the sole source for any bit of information and I have never actually cited a Wikipedia article in a paper, nor do I plan to until it is widely accepted as a valid resource.
I find it more useful as a guide to deeper references and as a summary outline of a certain subject. I frequently do use it as a source for resources. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 12:57:39 PM · #41 |
| Yes, properly written wiki pages that have citations and external, supporting links are wonderful as a springboard to more acceptable resources for research and papers. I used Wikipedia as a starting place for many of the papers in my MBA, but I rarely (if ever) cited the actual Wikipedia page and instead cited the sources to which that information was attributed. After over two years of writing intensive research papers, I found that Wikipedia was as reliable as any other source for the topics I was researching, but I know it has its drawbacks for topics that are more along "pop culture" lines since those pages are more likely to be edited by younger, less-educated contributors who inject opinions and hearsay. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 01:29:55 PM · #42 |
i'll admit to using wiki for quick checks about things. but i know that it's not a great source for good information. I'll stop by the library, or the online databases for the good stuff. However, I find wiki is usually pretty accurate about most things.
The colbert report did a "the word" on wikipedia my professor showed me in class. He also showed me a wiki entry he started based on the man he did his dissertation on. There was, after a year or so, things about that man he never heard of, or knew to be false. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 01:41:13 PM · #43 |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 01:44:04 PM · #44 |
I found wikipedia to be a most useful source when playing funny farm. :) I just typed in the word I was looking for associations of, and bam there they were. Very helpful with poker players names.
That reminds me, I still have a few blocks to fill in.
Later.
(If I were doing serious research, I would use it to read about the topic as an overview and figure out what else I needed to look for. I wouldn't use it as the primary source, or only source of anything.) |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:57:21 PM · #45 |
Colbert has a way of putting things into laymen's terms that not only hits the nail on the head, but is funny to.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2007 09:35:38 AM · #46 |
As a follow-up on his earlier segment, Stephen Colbert interviewed Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.
//www.colbertondemand.com/videos/Guest_Interviews/Stephen_Interviews_Wikipedia_Founder_Jimmy_Wales
His closing comment: "Wikipedia is an amazing thing. It's the first place I go when I'm looking for knowledge. Or when I want to create some." |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 09:49:05 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by theSaj:
No, but neither are most encyclopedias or resources. (ie: the number of errors in text books is mind-boggling)
Wikipedia is "insightful" |
Encyclopedias undergo editing, internal checking and must pass an approval process by their publishers before they are printed and released. They have to do that. After all, if it is full of errors then they won't be able to sell them.
Wikipedia goes through none of that, no editing whatsoever. No one oversees content for factual validity and nobody that enters data into it has a real financial interest or responsibly for insuring it is correct. Even if an expert in the field enters valid information and "insight", any idiot can go in change it.
That is a huge difference. |
I read an article a few months ago which took encyclopedia britannica and wikipedia and did a check for accuracy of information... what came up was rather amusing and to the anger of Britannica - wikipedia was slightly better in terms of errata than its "edited and approved by experts" counterpart...
I wouldnt underrate it because of a few scare stories of completely bogus information. On the whole it is a very good resource for knowledge and i used it frequently as a start point for many of my research based papers at uni - a lot of the information is cited (especially in the more scholarly articles) and all you need to do is look up the cited work and take the information from there.
What also needs to be said is that just because you are a scholar or a scientist doesnt make what you say gospel. Thus any scholarly work is subject to both bias and errors - i have read a few laughable bits of scholarly propaganda in my time so i wouldnt put your faith in something just because there are paid professionals at the helm...
Message edited by author 2007-05-31 09:49:34. |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 10:11:33 AM · #48 |
i wonder how much the weatherman gets paid......
Originally posted by inshaala:
i have read a few laughable bits of scholarly propaganda in my time so i wouldnt put your faith in something just because there are paid professionals at the helm... |
|
|
|
|
05/31/2007 10:17:08 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Chinabun:
i wonder how much the weatherman gets paid......
Originally posted by inshaala:
i have read a few laughable bits of scholarly propaganda in my time so i wouldnt put your faith in something just because there are paid professionals at the helm... |
|
I think it should be on commission based on the accuracy of the info ;) |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 10:33:53 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Chinabun:
i wonder how much the weatherman gets paid......
Originally posted by inshaala:
i have read a few laughable bits of scholarly propaganda in my time so i wouldnt put your faith in something just because there are paid professionals at the helm... |
|
I don't know. Wikipedia doesn't say. Ah, but we can fix that! How much should the weatherman get paid? ;-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 02:55:40 AM EDT.
