Wikipedia IS valid!

[LinkTheGameFreak]

For what reason do we disdain Wikipedia for the uses of citing information? Yes, given that most anyone can edit its info, you might on first glance think that it is not reliable, but given their standards for quality and accuracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria), why can't people accept that as a techno-driven culture, this is where we are heading for rather than a print medium that becomes obsolete just as soon as the ink finishes drying on the page?

A recent study (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5997332.html) and an even more recent study (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html) has held that on average that the amount of mistakes per Encyclopaedia Brittanica vs Wikipedia is 4 mistakes to 3, and given the constant cross checking of the site, while that edition of Brittanica is becoming more out of date with each passing day of the year until the new edition comes out, Wikipedia is able to revise their incorrect data. The second article also mentions that when asked to review articles for their validity, experts in said field rate the articles higher than non-experts do, citing that non-experts may be more critical of information that they do not understand.

So is it only that people are not willing to accept change, or is there something that I am missing here that would prove relevant to my (faulty) logic?

[Modred]

This is such an old story. You might want to know that Britannica leveled several serious accusations against Nature for problems in their study. http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

A few good excerpts:
One of the reviewer’s comments referred to text that does not appear in any Britannica publication.

The “article” on “aldol reaction” that the journal sent its reviewer consisted of passages taken selectively from two different Encyclopædia Britannica articles and joined together with text evidently written by Nature’s editors.

In addition, Britannica wanted to verify the results published by Nature, but the magazine refused to release their original reports.

In short, you discovered a two year old piece of sensationalist news that has long since been discredited.

[SilverCrusader]

I support wikipedia for its better design for functionality. But I don't like how some people vandalized it and how most of my teachers say it isn't an accurate source anymore and I can't use it for anything, really pisses me off.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

This is such an old story. You might want to know that Britannica leveled several serious accusations against Nature for problems in their study. http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

A few good excerpts:

In addition, Britannica wanted to verify the results published by Nature, but the magazine refused to release their original reports.

In short, you discovered a two year old piece of sensationalist news that has long since been discredited.

Regardless of if the results are falsified, what's wrong with embracing the technology? I applaud Wales' efforts to keep wikipedia as accurate as possible by imposing stricter guidelines, especially in the past year or two, and by not allowing new users to edit as freely as they once were allowed to. Granted, this is not going to still obtain perfect results but as SilverCrusader has put it, in terms of easy updatability, wikipedia is the future, and if we just stop quibbling over "OMG tehy used fayke info 4 they're survay!" and instead transfer the resources over to making the online wiki as accurate as possible... man that would be the penultimate achievement for easy access of accurate knowledge everywhere.

I support wikipedia for its better design for functionality. But I don't like how some people vandalized it and how most of my teachers say it isn't an accurate source anymore and I can't use it for anything, really pisses me off.

Instead we're stuck in an archaic way of recording data rather than embracing the technology in place that has proved itself to be more up-to-date than a book, even if the info is sometimes false, at least it's current. And in the end, which is more important? A 20 year old census count or the most current numbers according to recorded deaths and births in a country? What's better? Having a map to work from of the Soviet Union, or something more accurately depicting the constantly changing political landscape in terms of countries?

Although I do find your points valid, Modred, I can't help but ask whether or not you're only pointing out the disputed validity of the article I cited just to punch holes in my argument without even considering the idea or if you simply don't like the idea of technology advancing and the idea of knowledge disseminating into our culture more easily?

edit: btw, I love how in britannica's rebuttal, they try to justify their inaccuracies while demonizing wikipedia for having inaccuracies - especially how they say that 4 is such a greater number than 3 :) Also, the argument that they are misrepresenting their information seems to just be them coving their own asses. If you compare 4 to 3, you would say that that is pretty close, and for a project such as wikipedia, that's damn good, especially considering the amount of people working on it at any given time, the editors fact checking and making notes on pages concerning citations and validity and the nonstop editing to make sure that only factual information is left rather than vandalized pages because some asscock wanted to impress his buddies and write that "LOLZORZ! George Bush is a dumbshit!" on a page. I'd rather have a page that I know is vandalized and can be fixed rather than a source of information that is out of date and no longer relevant.

If given the chance I believe that wikipedia can become the great mix of established fact and up to date current breaking information that it should be, but because public opinion is skewed due to the overall shunning of the veracity of wikipedia, it may never get its chance.

[Lazere]

I actually did a paper on this awhile back. (Yes, I did use the falsified 'Nature' article) The way I figure it, Wikipedia, like any other online community, has to level out to one of two things... Either it's going to be one big spamfest until the intelligent people have given up, or it's going to be mostly intellectual content with minimal spam (through the work of tireless mods and editors, of course). It seems to me that Wikipedia is pretty close, if not already there, to the intellectual side of it. For this reason, I consider it to be a fairly reliable source.

[SilverCrusader]

You know what happened last time someone spammed/vandilized wikipedia? They closed down any entering of data for 3 months and made a system to prevent it. Wikipedia was not happy.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

You know what happened last time someone spammed/vandilized wikipedia? They closed down any entering of data for 3 months and made a system to prevent it. Wikipedia was not happy.
and that's pretty much the point i'm trying to make - the new guards in place and the more stringent guidelines for posting ANYTHING make it difficult to paste false info up and as long as the data is checked on a regular basis for accuracy, and any suspicious additions are removed quickly then I can see wikipedia as replacing the old standard of encyclopedic collections.

[SilverCrusader]

I like how people simply ignore all the sources at the bottom and claim all the information is a bunch of untrustworthy stuff. Really makes me laugh hard. Whats so great about wikipedia is that it gets all of its information from sources, it doesn't just explain it like an encyclopedia would.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

I like how people simply ignore all the sources at the bottom and claim all the information is a bunch of untrustworthy stuff. Really makes me laugh hard. Whats so great about wikipedia is that it gets all of its information from sources, it doesn't just explain it like an encyclopedia would.
I don't quite follow what you mean there, could you elaborate on if that's a pro or con of the wiki system?

[ecyor0]

You also have to consider that some people actually prefer a physical encyclopedia to reference from. Wikipedia is, by its nature, in a constant state of flux. Meaning that in an academic piece of writing, where all references must be sited thoroughly, the article/quote referenced could change by the time someone else comes by to check the sources. With Britannica, while it may be less up-to-date, it at least remains as a constant reference. (Now, having more up-to-date references is better of course, but my experience of academia at University is that they are mistrustful of anything that wasn't researched/collated by people who actually knew their stuff, and put their name to their work. With Wikipedia, because it is very much a "layman's encyclopedia", that anyone can chip in on, it doesn't carry the weight that an academic work would.

That said, Wikipedia is very good for the simple sake of convenience. Not sure what that engineering term is? Wiki it. Can't remember what decade Joe 90 started playing in? Wiki it. Want a quick overview of how a jet engine works? Wiki it. Very useful.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

You also have to consider that some people actually prefer a physical encyclopedia to reference from. Wikipedia is, by its nature, in a constant state of flux. Meaning that in an academic piece of writing, where all references must be sited thoroughly, the article/quote referenced could change by the time someone else comes by to check the sources. With Britannica, while it may be less up-to-date, it at least remains as a constant reference. (Now, having more up-to-date references is better of course, but my experience of academia at University is that they are mistrustful of anything that wasn't researched/collated by people who actually knew their stuff, and put their name to their work. With Wikipedia, because it is very much a "layman's encyclopedia", that anyone can chip in on, it doesn't carry the weight that an academic work would.

That said, Wikipedia is very good for the simple sake of convenience. Not sure what that engineering term is? Wiki it. Can't remember what decade Joe 90 started playing in? Wiki it. Want a quick overview of how a jet engine works? Wiki it. Very useful.
You know what, I'd never even considered that and that's a great valid point - hell they're both great points in how you allow both to coexist without one torpedoing the other. GG.

I think I'd gotten a bit carried away from the original topic of the thread and that was a great post to get it back on track and you're absolutely right that they both hold a place. One being more constant and the other more up to date BUT ALSO not much less accurate than the generally accepted, printed version.

That having been said, will wikipedia ever be acknowledged as a valid source of information within the academic community in general?

[ScottieIWU]

I like how people simply ignore all the sources at the bottom and claim all the information is a bunch of untrustworthy stuff. Really makes me laugh hard. Whats so great about wikipedia is that it gets all of its information from sources, it doesn't just explain it like an encyclopedia would.Well the point of Wikipedia is to be articles based ENTIRELY on cited content, simply acting as a source to gather all the information in one place. Articles that are "original" content are not technically up-to-par for Wikipedia's purposes.

Does that mean that every article and every bit of fact can be cited? Most definitely not. Wikipedia is not currently (and probably will never be) accepted as a source for scholarly purposes. However, as Crusader pointed out, it has all those nifty links at the bottom, and thus becomes itself a wonderful tertiary source of information. Follow those links and you probably have found yourself a wealth of knowledge that is perfect for scholarly papers, etc.

I've been on the Wikipedia awesome-train since the start, but even I admit that it is not the most reliable source ever. Could you hop on Wikipedia and self-educate yourself about a certain topic and, assuming comprehension of the article, kind of know what you're talking about? Probably. Does that mean you've got the equivelant of an education in said field? Nope.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

Well the point of Wikipedia is to be articles based ENTIRELY on cited content, simply acting as a source to gather all the information in one place. Articles that are "original" content are not technically up-to-par for Wikipedia's purposes.

Does that mean that every article and every bit of fact can be cited? Most definitely not. Wikipedia is not currently (and probably will never be) accepted as a source for scholarly purposes. However, as Crusader pointed out, it has all those nifty links at the bottom, and thus becomes itself a wonderful tertiary source of information. Follow those links and you probably have found yourself a wealth of knowledge that is perfect for scholarly papers, etc.

I've been on the Wikipedia awesome-train since the start, but even I admit that it is not the most reliable source ever. Could you hop on Wikipedia and self-educate yourself about a certain topic and, assuming comprehension of the article, kind of know what you're talking about? Probably. Does that mean you've got the equivelant of an education in said field? Nope.
well that's like saying that you could read the encyclopedia brittanica and become an expert on the subject of your choosing - simply put, it's not possible with either source, but both do provide a wealth of info on lots of subject, although I'd have to say that Wikipedia ranges a MUCH larger and more comprehensive amount of range of subjects, not only from broad topics but also very in depth articles on very specific things (specifically things like films and music)

[Lazere]

...both do provide a wealth of info on lots of subject, although I'd have to say that Wikipedia ranges a MUCH larger and more comprehensive amount of range of subjects, not only from broad topics but also very in depth articles on very specific things (specifically things like films and music)

And that's the thing. Wikipedia, unlike Britannica, is not bound by what the publisher wants. The community decides which articles are to be created, and which articles are to be taken down. There is no limit to how many articles they can have because storage is cheap and paper printing is expensive...

[Anoiktos]

Regardless of the study, I personally find that for *general* research, Wikipedia is an excellent place to get an idea of what your subject is, but for *specific* research, it's best to go and look at its sources (always a good idea in general). Wikipedia has this incredible advantage over any other encyclopedia that its sources can be readily checked and its information quickly updated, meaning that (in collusion with good editors, the prestige of having 'de-vandalized' pages, and the locking of sensitive topics) the Wikipedia is, to me, a wonderful source of general information that can be used to find more specific information, wheras the Britannica and other print encyclopedias are sadly limited at dated general information.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

And that's the thing. Wikipedia, unlike Britannica, is not bound by what the publisher wants. The community decides which articles are to be created, and which articles are to be taken down. There is no limit to how many articles they can have because storage is cheap and paper printing is expensive...
technically the articles on wikipedia are subject to the moderators scrutiny and can be taken down if not deemed high enough quality for wikipedia or, among other reasons, is self-promotion (like, if you have a local band, you cannot make a page for them) so, not just ANYTHING can go up - it's anything within reason and of quality caliber that goes up and stays up

Regardless of the study, I personally find that for *general* research, Wikipedia is an excellent place to get an idea of what your subject is, but for *specific* research, it's best to go and look at its sources (always a good idea in general). Wikipedia has this incredible advantage over any other encyclopedia that its sources can be readily checked and its information quickly updated, meaning that (in collusion with good editors, the prestige of having 'de-vandalized' pages, and the locking of sensitive topics) the Wikipedia is, to me, a wonderful source of general information that can be used to find more specific information, wheras the Britannica and other print encyclopedias are sadly limited at dated general information.

no comment other than "you understand." :)