Wikipedia (17)

1 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-29 02:41 ID:qcY0U3OL

I see everyone going LOL Wikipedia but is it really that unreliable of a source? I recall reading some article comparing it to Britannica in accuracy

2 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-29 03:43 ID:gBW5ISOG

They're inaccurate in different ways, really. Britannica is inaccurate because it's a huge quantity of text stewarded by a finite number of professionals, and the articles tend to become very outdated. Wikipedia is inaccurate because people are constantly trying to impose their own personal biases on the articles, or just don't know shit about the subject they're writing about (the latter problem is probably present in Britannica as well, but to a lesser extent.)

Generally Wikipedia is okay for personal reference, although you should turn up your bullshit detector to maximum when reading about controversial topics like Middle Eastern politics. Checking the article history can help you judge how reliable a given article is likely to be.

You shouldn't be using either Wikipedia or Britannica as a source for your term paper. Following Wikipedia citations can be helpful in locating better sources, though.

3 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-29 04:11 ID:+PyiKq8J

Seems a huge % of wikipe is kopipe'd from elsewhere on the tubes.

4 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-29 05:52 ID:IJzhkVlU

Seems a huge % of the tubes is kopipe'd from elsewhere on the tubes.

5 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-29 14:17 ID:plptFN6l

Seems a huge % of the tubes is kopipe'd from elsewhere on the wikipe.

6 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-29 20:41 ID:GMEvpbEz

Seems a huge % of the elsewhere is kopipe'd from wikipe on the tubes.

7 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-29 21:05 ID:IHhC+XN7

>>1
The article focused on scientific articles, for which there is less bias than politics, religion, or history.
And Britannica still had far fewer errors.

8 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-30 05:01 ID:gBW5ISOG

>>7
Eh? I assumed >>1 was referring to the well-publicized http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
While that particular study is controversial and suspect, I'm not aware of any similar comparison showing that Britannica has far fewer errors.
Do you have a link?

9 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-30 06:05 ID:IHhC+XN7

>>8
From that article that you linked:

> the journal claimed that Britannica turned up 123 "errors" to Wikipedia's 162.

I'd call that a significant difference, even when not considering the nature of the study. Your mileage may vary.
I believed I was referring to an earlier article I read (from The Register, I'm sure) when I mentioned the articles chosen for comparison were scientific in nature. My memory may be faulty.

Wikipedia is still the best 'free' encyclopedia that I know of, even if that's no saying much.

10 Name: Anonymous : 2007-09-30 06:09 ID:gBW5ISOG

>>9
Oh, sorry. I'm tired and dyslexic, I guess.

11 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-02 08:50 ID:NyALIvxq

Some critics argue that Wikipedia should only be used as a quick reference or as an introduction to topics you are merely curious about.[citation needed]

12 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-02 15:48 ID:Heaven

>>11
I agree, except I think the same about all encyclopedias.

13 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-02 16:18 ID:WU+7T+zm

>>11 LOL

14 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-07 00:35 ID:htZHlfvD

Inaccuracy certainly is a problem on Wikipedia, but the attempts to solve said problem (by enforcing a policy of having to reference absolutely everything) have just made it even worse. I recently came across an article that was almost completely empty, but looking at the history it once covered the topic fairly comprehensively until one user took it upon himself to delete random unreferenced paragraphs and/or sentences (while leaving others), in a way that made the article somewhat nonsensical and quite frankly shit.

This person had himself written several articles that lacked a single reference, and if I was a petty man with fuck-all else to do I'd go and do the same to all of them. It was also quite obvious from his user page and edit history that he personally disliked the subject of the article, and was almost certainly doing what he did simply due to his own personal views rather than any desire to improve Wikipedia. But he was acting completely in accordance with the rules, so not only did he get away with it but he's still doing the same thing whenever anyone adds so much as a word to that article.

15 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-07 02:50 ID:YnNEqEqT

>>14
meh. the polite thing would be to discuss first or tag the article

16 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-07 02:50 ID:YnNEqEqT

>>14
meh. the polite thing would be to discuss first or tag the article

17 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-07 21:36 ID:Heaven

>>16
Every single article on Wikipedia is tagged for some reason or another, and I'd imagine discussion is pretty much pointless unless both parties are on equal ground.
(They're both moderators or have no status at all)

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.