But it is agood reminder nonetheless, I do find most of their stuff informative, but operating the way they do I have found a number of articles that although partially true are obviously slanted if not outright misleading toward the views of the contributor.
Its a quick ready reference most of the time pretty good--but it certainly isnt gospel
On the 'baseball the talking sport' thread few months ago this came up. I wondered what ever happened to a certain former baseball player turned broadcaster who was well known from the late 60s through the early 90s. According to Wikipedia this guy had a thing for "latin boys" and his broadcast partner was a "screaming queen". I couldn't believe it. So I pasted the juicy stuff on the thread and one of the regular contributors to the thread immediately went to Wikipedia and erased it.
Then one morning while driving to work I'm listening to the STL talk radio station and the DJ says that Wikipedia is so credible and can be trusted. Ha ha.
In light of how much we scream around here about citing sources, why would anyone want to use an "encyclopedia' that has no pedigree? In other words, no bibliography or any other means of verifying information. If I'm not mistaken, there isn't even a list of contributors.
Exactly, dooj. In the article I posted the link to above, the person accusing a man of being a conconspirator in the assassinations of both JFK and Bobby Kennedy was anonymous, for crying out loud.
I naively quoted Wikipedia a few times myself until I realized how it's put together. I trust it for info about as much as I'd trust Mapquest to get me all the way across the country. :)
In light of how much we scream around here about citing sources, why would anyone want to use an "encyclopedia' that has no pedigree? In other words, no bibliography or any other means of verifying information. If I'm not mistaken, there isn't even a list of contributors.
I eschew the site.
In my opinion, each article should be viewed independently. Many of the articles are impeccably sourced. However, not all are...and some of the sources cited are not exactly reliable.
Anything "wiki" should be treated with caution: caveat emptor.
A study was done a year or two back that found Wikipedia's information was about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. That's not to say that abuse doesn't happen, but that regular encyclopedias can be very wrong as well. Like Mark said, each article should be viewed independently. If you look at a wikipedia article on something that could be controversial like Bush, then definitely question it. However, if you look up an article on something like the planet Saturn, then it should be fairly accurate.
Also keep this in mind Linda (and others). One thing that Wikipedia does that encyclopedias (and I'm referring to the online ones) do not do, is if there is an inaccurate article posted, there is a means whereby it can be openly challenged for accuracy, right there on the site.
I dare you to show me any other encyclopedic site or source even, that has or allows that.
Which is one of the big reasons why Wikipedia is as highly accurate as it is overall. Even with the ability to go in and post articles by anybody. By all odds, it should be a hodge-podge of chaos and meaningless garbage with that kind of setup. ... But it isn't.
While doing a book, I came along Wikipedia but didn't use it, as the site says it takes anyone's articles and lets anyone edit them. While I learned there was some control over them, no way could I use it. In biblical research, other online encyclopedias were reliable. An example was newadvent.org or the Catholic Encyclopedia online. While it is Catholic, it has very reliable historical information. There are obviously others.
I prefer though, a good set of old-fashioned book encyclopedias.
Recommended Posts
mstar1
I couldnt get your link to work---
But it is agood reminder nonetheless, I do find most of their stuff informative, but operating the way they do I have found a number of articles that although partially true are obviously slanted if not outright misleading toward the views of the contributor.
Its a quick ready reference most of the time pretty good--but it certainly isnt gospel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
On the 'baseball the talking sport' thread few months ago this came up. I wondered what ever happened to a certain former baseball player turned broadcaster who was well known from the late 60s through the early 90s. According to Wikipedia this guy had a thing for "latin boys" and his broadcast partner was a "screaming queen". I couldn't believe it. So I pasted the juicy stuff on the thread and one of the regular contributors to the thread immediately went to Wikipedia and erased it.
Then one morning while driving to work I'm listening to the STL talk radio station and the DJ says that Wikipedia is so credible and can be trusted. Ha ha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
In light of how much we scream around here about citing sources, why would anyone want to use an "encyclopedia' that has no pedigree? In other words, no bibliography or any other means of verifying information. If I'm not mistaken, there isn't even a list of contributors.
I eschew the site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Exactly, dooj. In the article I posted the link to above, the person accusing a man of being a conconspirator in the assassinations of both JFK and Bobby Kennedy was anonymous, for crying out loud.
I naively quoted Wikipedia a few times myself until I realized how it's put together. I trust it for info about as much as I'd trust Mapquest to get me all the way across the country. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
In my opinion, each article should be viewed independently. Many of the articles are impeccably sourced. However, not all are...and some of the sources cited are not exactly reliable.
Anything "wiki" should be treated with caution: caveat emptor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
A study was done a year or two back that found Wikipedia's information was about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. That's not to say that abuse doesn't happen, but that regular encyclopedias can be very wrong as well. Like Mark said, each article should be viewed independently. If you look at a wikipedia article on something that could be controversial like Bush, then definitely question it. However, if you look up an article on something like the planet Saturn, then it should be fairly accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Also keep this in mind Linda (and others). One thing that Wikipedia does that encyclopedias (and I'm referring to the online ones) do not do, is if there is an inaccurate article posted, there is a means whereby it can be openly challenged for accuracy, right there on the site.
I dare you to show me any other encyclopedic site or source even, that has or allows that.
Which is one of the big reasons why Wikipedia is as highly accurate as it is overall. Even with the ability to go in and post articles by anybody. By all odds, it should be a hodge-podge of chaos and meaningless garbage with that kind of setup. ... But it isn't.
Just something to keep in mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
While doing a book, I came along Wikipedia but didn't use it, as the site says it takes anyone's articles and lets anyone edit them. While I learned there was some control over them, no way could I use it. In biblical research, other online encyclopedias were reliable. An example was newadvent.org or the Catholic Encyclopedia online. While it is Catholic, it has very reliable historical information. There are obviously others.
I prefer though, a good set of old-fashioned book encyclopedias.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.