techboy Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I'll admit it... I'm torn on the subject. Generally, when I'm doing research, particularly when I'm discussing an issue on a board such as this, I try to use scholarly articles with extensive documentation. However, usually when it's an item with near universal consensus, I have been known to cite Wikipedia. I'm not, however, sure if I can trust it. What makes me nervous, of course, is that anyone can edit it at any time. I have images of some loser with nothing better to do (whether through mischief or some darker reason, like a holocaust denier) changing the site to indicate some falsehood, and then sitting there, restoring the change any time someone tries to fix it. On the other hand, I can equally imagine someone with nothing better to do than to sit around making sure no such change gets made. So, I guess it balances out. I must add that generally, Wikipedia is pretty good at citing sources, and I've never encountered something I knew was wrong, but I still just don't completely trust it. Besides, those stupid hot-links keep leading me down totally different paths until even though I started out looking up some detail about the Battle of Britain, I end up reading the origins and examples of the phrase "jump the shark". It's just far too tempting for a person of my curiosity and short attention span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 don't cite wikipedia for a paper or something, but otherwise, it isn't bad. I usually use it for take home essays and stuff, where I don't really need to cite things. I also find another page that is through some university that also summarizes something the way wikipedia does, to make sure I dont f up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinva Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 For general knowledge stuff on large subjects or issues I think it's fine. It's some of the shorter ones that get less scrutiny that are a little shady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 What makes me nervous, of course, is that anyone can edit it at any time. I have images of some loser with nothing better to do (whether through mischief or some darker reason, like a holocaust denier) changing the site to indicate some falsehood, and then sitting there, restoring the change any time someone tries to fix it. I'd be afraid of chomerics doing that, as well. :jk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I have no reason not to trust wikipedia. I have read probably a hudred of their articles and never come across any false information or information I could not verify through other means. Republicans seem to hate wikipedia but this is because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Republicans seem to hate wikipedia but this is because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Phew, for a minute I didn't think this would take a political turn. Democrats love wikipedia because it resides on the internet, and they did invent it after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Phew, for a minute I didn't think this would take a political turn.Democrats love wikipedia because it resides on the internet, and they did invent it after all! touche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I'm most trusting of the articles that cite sources, and I'd never make it my only reference. Generally it seems to be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty-eight Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I just cited it for a paper... i love wikipedia:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentClinton07 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I just cited it for a paper...i love wikipedia:D I did too , I got basically all my information from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 A few months ago Esquire had a good article on Wikipedia. I can't remember the specifics, but there are a few hundred people (smart people) who are "regular" editors on there. They put up a test article riddled with fallacies and mistakes, and I think it was 100% corrected in a day or so. You could catch an article right after somebody effs it up, but what are the chances of that happening? Or you could be a complete tool bag and change wikipedia to suit your argument. **coughBlueTaloncough** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty-eight Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Check out Steve Buckhantz's page on wikipedia, so on point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drums and skins Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 This reminds me of one time that I was listening to Don and Mike a month or so ago. Bart, Don's son, called his father to tell him to check out his wikipedia entry. Don does and he sees that there is a bunch of inflammatory remarks and an entire passage about him being a kid toucher and has been accused of molesting his son. Don isn't too happy and starts telling Bart about people with too much time on their hands, and stuff and Bart says "Dad...It was me" and then he had a good laugh. Bart took it down like right afterwards. Anyways, despite how bad I told that little anecdote, it goes to show how easily accessible the page is. I would NEVER use it for a paper. Most colleges wouldn't accept it either (mine, UMBC, doesn't...well, atleast all of my professors have dismissed it). I do, however, find it very helpful for general information about a subject. The real trick of using wikipedia is being able to diseminate the fact from opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I use it a lot actually. Lots of useful formulas and math conventions that are scattered througout textbooks are all in one place. It's a great resource. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I've used Wikipedia to get a quick idea about what a term means to those using the term or as a starting place for researching a subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsn24 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I use it alot. Usually if something is disputed or not proven there will be a warning from the site telling you that, the current section has not been proven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 A few months ago Esquire had a good article on Wikipedia. I can't remember the specifics, but there are a few hundred people (smart people) who are "regular" editors on there. They put up a test article riddled with fallacies and mistakes, and I think it was 100% corrected in a day or so. You could catch an article right after somebody effs it up, but what are the chances of that happening?Or you could be a complete tool bag and change wikipedia to suit your argument. **coughBlueTaloncough** In my Writing and Technology class this past semester, our teacher changed Shakespeare's info to read that he was born here in Wilmington, NC and it was corrected in less than a minute. I guess it depends on how often the information is viewed. For instance, Shakespeare is probably hit much more than the history of shoe strings or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I trust'm...... :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Guy. Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Besides, those stupid hot-links keep leading me down totally different paths until even though I started out looking up some detail about the Battle of Britain, I end up reading the origins and examples of the phrase "jump the shark". It's just far too tempting for a person of my curiosity and short attention span. That made me laugh...out loud. That happened to me last night when I was trying to study for an exam. Its soo true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LANCERLOT Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I'll admit it... I'm torn on the subject. Generally, when I'm doing research, particularly when I'm discussing an issue on a board such as this, I try to use scholarly articles with extensive documentation. However, usually when it's an item with near universal consensus, I have been known to cite Wikipedia. I'm not, however, sure if I can trust it.What makes me nervous, of course, is that anyone can edit it at any time. I have images of some loser with nothing better to do (whether through mischief or some darker reason, like a holocaust denier) changing the site to indicate some falsehood, and then sitting there, restoring the change any time someone tries to fix it. On the other hand, I can equally imagine someone with nothing better to do than to sit around making sure no such change gets made. So, I guess it balances out. I must add that generally, Wikipedia is pretty good at citing sources, and I've never encountered something I knew was wrong, but I still just don't completely trust it. Besides, those stupid hot-links keep leading me down totally different paths until even though I started out looking up some detail about the Battle of Britain, I end up reading the origins and examples of the phrase "jump the shark". It's just far too tempting for a person of my curiosity and short attention span. Its to bad you couldnt send this matter to Daniel Snyder himself? He got Gibbs backKK!!! I like your evaluation of this redskin history web site. I had planns reading it soon???Crazy me...lol:dallasuck Hail to the Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LANCERLOT Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 :point2sky Thee History of the Redskins "should" be kept "secure" as if it were the declaration of independance !!!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LANCERLOT Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 perhaps we could go into this site and make it as if the Redskins have won Superbowl's Since Joe Gibbs has been in Washington. That would be like 13 Trophies?? /lol LOL/ "Hail to the Redskins" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LANCERLOT Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Perhaps we could go into this site and make it as if the Redskins have won Superbowl's Since Joe Gibbs has been in Washington. That would be like 13 Trophies?? /lol LOL/ :applause: "Hail to the Redskins" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.