|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
bel: Wikipedia is essentially free to copy so there's no need for phony entries
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Quote:
bel: Wikipedia is essentially free to copy so there's no need for phony entries
Yup, you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
bel: Somehow in an attempted reply I accidentally deleted your followup, and I apologize; tho I don't know how I did it, as it's not something that should even be possible
Cancel that. Somehow after I fumbled around a little both your entry and my followup came back. Evidently I haven't learned all the wily tricks of the algorithm
PS: In spite of Wikipedia's susceptibility I find it to be pretty accurate and informative
Last edited by dalehileman; 10/23/05 12:03 AM.
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Well, there's a lot of cut-rate stuff on Wikipedia, but there are some top notch pieces as well. It's not usually very hard to tell the difference. And, anyway, if it's the only resource you're using, well then . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Peter: Furthermore, you may find here entries available almost nowhere else
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
>>According to an M.I.T. study, an obscenity randomly inserted on Wikipedia is removed in 1.7 min., on average. Vandals might as well be spray-painting walls with disappearing ink."
The thing is, you have your everyday idiot who gets his kicks on swooping in and swearing/writing obscenities, which they can identify immediately.
It is the person that comes up with a plausible explanation and inserts it on their site that they don't seem to be competent in catching.
Look at how easy it is to come up with bogus explanations. Our Hogwash games are proof of that.
It is that lack of accuracy that makes me stay away. How will you know what's true, from what isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 203
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 203 |
How will you know what's true, from what isn't [?]
But this is true of anything you read.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
The utility of an encyclopedia is directly proportional to the reliability of its entries. No doubt about that one, but this is not the only variable determining said utility. And if to know what is true, it were sufficient to consult an encyclopedia, scores of philosophers would be out of work 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Quote:
The utility of an encyclopedia is directly proportional to the reliability of its entries. No doubt about that one, but this is not the only variable determining said utility. And if to know what is true, it were sufficient to consult an encyclopedia, scores of philosophers would be out of work
I hate to be the one to break it to you, Werner, but scores are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
>>HL: But this is true of anything you read.
Yes, I agree with that HL, but that is exactly why you have to have confidence that the source of your information is accurate, well informed and secure. If you keep finding errors in a reference book, then there is no point in keeping this book as a reference since, when you really don’t know something, and you look it up, there is a good chance you might be misinformed and you won’t know. You’ll believe an untruth.
Wikipedia has too many errors in it for my comfort. It’s has to much hearsay. As I mentioned, I’m uncomfortable with the one invented word in the dictionaries, so a reference site with many errors is something I’ll never use.
>>wsieber: And if to know what is true, it were sufficient to consult an encyclopedia, scores of philosophers would be out of work.
Aye, life is an ongoing process of learning. You just have to look at the National Geographics of 20 years ago, and their information can vary greatly from their current information. The evolution of man articles are eye-openers as to how much we've learned in such a short period of time.
The thing is though, I’m not talking about the meaning of life, what’s our purpose, where to we go when we die, or those topics that philosophers have been arguing over since man learned to discuss, I’m talking about having confidence that the source of information I use is accurate.
I do realize that humans are the creators of these sources, and that errors can slip through because humans aren’t perfect, but, I also realize that there are certain organizations that are set up in a way to ensure accuracy, and others aren’t. Wikipedia isn’t.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,364
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (A C Bowden),
630
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
