RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true.

RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CuriousLord -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 10:26:05 AM)
In my earlier college years, I once wrote a report on nuclear power plants. Then I read the guidelines. I needed eight scholarly sources. Damn! So I logged onto the net, started searching minutes before class, and added in sites. The paper failed, but not for lack of any elements but one; apparently, Wikipedia didn't pass as a scholary source. My arguement, "but there's nothing more peer reviewed out there!" didn't seem to make much of a difference.

Owner59 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 10:31:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I seem to recall reading that the guy who owns Wikipedia said "You can believe all thats written here " Having read the article attatched i`m not suprised. If the article is true, and in my opinion it is, then everything we find on the net should be taken with a pinch of salt..... Errr even the BBC story. [;)] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm Wikipedia is just a research tool.It`s not Websters and never pretended to be. It`s a source for links and published articles,on what ever subject you want. There`s disclaimers, plenty of sources,and foot-notes up the wazoo. So what`s the big deal?Everyone I know,knows what Wikipedia is,and what it isn`t. What`s the confusion? What`s the rub? I think you have missed the point of my post. It had nothing to do with what Wikipedia is or isn`t, and everything to do with the fact that political parties are breaking the TOS, and editing other peoples pages. Personally i often use it as a starting point and then go from there[;)] I recall Stephen Colbert and his friends,got an endangered elephant off the list,just by sending in entries to wikki,lol.Of course,it only said that in wikki for a few days. How can anyone think that an open source website could be scholary?There`s discalimers everywhere! lol

meatcleaver -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 11:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I think you have missed the point of my post. It had nothing to do with what Wikipedia is or isn`t, and everything to do with the fact that political parties are breaking the TOS, and editing other peoples pages. Personally i often use it as a starting point and then go from there[;)] Political parties lie, cheat, steal, blackmail and just about everything else, this comes as no surprise. It is about their operating level which is well below a gutter rat.

Politesub53 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 11:18:25 AM)
Scholary or not it`s still a starting point. I think the best thing about this story is that Wikipedia have made there accusations public. [;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 11:23:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Scholary or not it`s still a starting point. I think the best thing about this story is that Wikipedia have made there accusations public. [;)] It's a pity they couldn't point the finger more directly but I thought I heard that Wikipedia were going to employ fact checkers? Hmm Maybe that is how they noticed.

SleepyBeast -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 11:36:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Scholary or not it`s still a starting point. I think the best thing about this story is that Wikipedia have made there accusations public. [;)] It's a pity they couldn't point the finger more directly but I thought I heard that Wikipedia were going to employ fact checkers? Hmm Maybe that is how they noticed. I think it was someone using the Wikiscanner http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ to find them.

Aswad -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 3:23:39 PM)
There is a fair bit of verifying going on at times, but you can't beat Darwin every time. Some people are not going to check the edit history and talk pages. Thus, they will get the "facts" they deserve. Used properly, WP is just fine.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 5:38:10 PM)
Fast Reply: If you are going to use Wikipedia, then learn what it is about. Also take note that you can view revision history. Look over what was changed, and research yourself on whether it should have been changed. One other thing is that Wikipedia records the IP of the person changing it, and you agree to this when you go on their site, it is hidden among all the referenced links in the TOS. You can also look at the history of that IP, which will show the articles they have changed. All of this should be taken into consideration when using wikipedia. One of the nice things, is the external links at the bottom of the page, and references, which allows you to go to those sources and verify them. If you use it correctly, it can lead you to alot of interesting research and things, about whatever it is you are trying to look up. As all things spoken, and read, verify it for yourself.

popeye1250 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 6:00:01 PM)
Sure it is! Take a look at "JFK School of Government." I doctored that one up a bit.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625