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

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



Message

Politesub53 -> If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 1:47:25 PM)

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



Alumbrado -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 1:52:47 PM)

quote:

"...Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia that can be created and edited by anyone."



In other words, you get what you pay for.



Politesub53 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 1:57:07 PM)

Very true, although since most of the internet is free. Should we discount every single site people quote here as a source of reference ?
[;)]



Alumbrado -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 2:06:24 PM)

Refereed jounals, established encyclopaedias, unabridged dictionaries, et al. are not even close to being free, even though they are accessible without charge via a library or the internet....

The original material in Wikipedia is obtained at zero charge, and is worth just that as a verifiable reference.

As a reflection of what the people contributing think or wish reality to be, it has some use.
And as a quick lookup for the dates of WWII, or the names of Karl Rove's children, it has some use.
Both of those are undermined by concerted efforts to falsify entries.

They really should follow truth in advertising, and call it 'Lumpenpedia'.



FullCircle -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 2:10:10 PM)

It doesn’t really surprise me. The first rule of an information war is to not admit to the information war. This is a good way of following that first rule by manipulating a once independence source. I’d be surprised if they didn’t have departments who go around editing numerous web pages.

Whenever there is a news item and the news network takes telephone calls from local eyewitnesses. Who is to say those eyewitnesses are not secret organisations feeding the networks information?

It's all the same to them; information feeds to exploit. Accept that they do it and then try to figure out why.



Rule -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 2:29:55 PM)

I read in said article: "The site also indicates that Vatican computers were used to remove content from a page about the leader of the Irish republican party Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams.
The edit removed links to newspaper stories written in 2006 that alleged that Mr Adams' fingerprints and handprints were found on a car used during a double murder in 1971."

This implies that Gerry Adams committed these murders at the behest of the Vatican. Interesting.
 



Aswad -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 2:33:08 PM)

Politesub53,

The quote from J. Wales, the founder, is very simple: "Do not trust Wikipedia."

He has been skeptical of the "wisdom of the commons" all along, and is a ... zealous objectivist.



Alumbrado -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 2:33:53 PM)

You just Googled that, dintcha?   [:D]



Aswad -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 2:39:10 PM)

No, I did not.

It's even part of the topic-line for #wikipedia on freenode.

Except for the Randlist bits; those I picked up during a debate elsewhere.

I could Google him, though, if you like.



Alumbrado -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 2:43:57 PM)

No thanks, my feelings on the lowest common denominator as a source of 'knowledge' are well informed.[;)]



Politesub53 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 3:03:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

You just Googled that, dintcha?   [:D]


Too funny [:D]



Aswad -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 3:07:35 PM)

~nods~

Wikipedia is useful in the same capacity as Google is: a starting point.

If you don't have a clue about a topic, WP will provide some hints of questionable accuracy, that you can Google to find more info of questionable accuracy but less opportunities for systematic bias (apart from mainstream opinion, which even colours peer-reviewed works, after all), and then you can get an idea of which reference sources to go to.

E.g. if you want info about a medicine, you can WP it, which gives you the INN, and then you can look that up at PubMed and Cochrane for detailed info, or RxList and the like for surface info. Under no circumstance should anyone trust the actual info on WP for something like that, as a whole bunch of the articles on that topic are factually inaccurate to the point that following the advice can be fatal.

I'm thinking we agree, in any case.

The lowest common denominator, the beaten path, etc., are all just the dominant bias of the mainstream public.

And WP admits even the goal itself- if perfectly realized- is verifiability, not truth.



Owner59 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 6:39:04 PM)

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?



Aileen68 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 6:42:51 PM)

To me, Wikipedia is like Cliff Notes.  I get a quick little overview written in easily understandable terms.   For anything serious, medical questions, etc, I find more legitimate information sources.



farglebargle -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 6:56:15 PM)

Better than Cliff Notes. Cliff Notes with a DISCUSSION page.

For any controversial topic, the Discussion page will give all the various opinions, in varying strengths.

I figure it's one of the major benefits of the format.



TheHeretic -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 6:58:57 PM)

       Loved the bit in the link about official arms of the Democrat party changing things around to label Rush Limbaugh listeners as "retarded." 

      I'm not suprised.  You'll see the same disinformation on Google Earth sometimes, with bad labels, or very low resolution. 



KatyLied -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 7:01:40 PM)

I don't understand the wiki hate.  It's a great place for info when you are in a hurry.  And I've found the references to be helpful for further reading.  I love wiki, it's on my firefox quick search.



farglebargle -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 7:12:27 PM)

I just stick a 'wiki' into my google searches to make sure they percolate to the top.

That way I don't need to change the FF search bar. ( I hate reaching for the mouse... )



Owner59 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/15/2007 7:13:51 PM)

The wiki haters are upset,because it helps normal regular god fearing good Americans, whip their lame-ass ,no fact check`n,non-google`n, cool-aid drink`n butts!



Politesub53 -> RE: If its in Wikipedia it must be true. (8/16/2007 10:18:22 AM)

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[;)]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875