|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
if it's the only resource you're using, well then . . . ...you can be in deep doo-doo. I suppose, if the reason you're looking something up isn't very important, then you might be okay. Or, even if it is important, you might get lucky and get a correct answer. I'm sure many of the entries are; I'd even be willing to concede that most of them probably are. But why take a chance? Given the facts that people make honest mistakes AND that some take perverse pleasure in...vandalism (a good word for deliberately putting misinformation  )--give me good old, reliable sources any day: ones by companies of long-standing reputation, known to have quality editing, etc. *I could go in there and post oh, say, such-and-such is made by using ammonium sulfide, when the correct compound is really ammonium sulfate; then what if somebody tries this and there's an explosion or something?** No thank you--I can't see there being very many times at all when I'd look up something in Wikipedia, because then I'd just have to try other places to check the accuracy. Nuh-uh; nope. **To me, believing false facts would be the mental equivalent of having an experiment blow up--that's why I used that example. I make a fool of myself quite well enough on my own, tyvm, without "help" that would have me running around saying, perhaps, "Christopher Columbus really discovered America in 1493--I read about it in Wikipedia". EDIT: Father Steve, thank you, thank you! From your post in Weekly Themes (italics added): The entire phrase is 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating,' meaning that the true value or quality of a thing can only be judged when it is put to use. , and the proof of the pudding is in the eating - proof will be in the practical experience or demonstration ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I use the Wikipedia as a starting point. there are usually very good links to further information about a topic.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
The responses to the Register article I linked to last week make interesting reading. Especially those from peoplw who have written for Wikipedia http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/24/wikipedia_letters/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
Reading the first page of the article to which Max refers our attention will expose the reader to the following usages:
Smart mobs
content generators
wonks
twiddlers
procedural whackjobs
happy-go-lucky flower shower
howling errors
futzing around
ex-Pedians
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
The first quoted critique (unintentionally?) exposes some roots of the controversy:
As I have been close to some political movements and am pursuing an academic career in political history, I figured I would have something to contribute.
In the end I couldn't recognise my articles
Now, is this astonishment genuine?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
such-and-such is made by using ammonium sulfide I can't stay unmoved by your chemical example, which, I admit, is perfectly to the point. The trouble is, each time I find an article on a chemical subject in a respected newspaper (not to mention the free ones), there is at least one error of the sort you mention. If I extrapolate this to areas/subjects of which I am ignorant - 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 427
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 427 |
I think the key to using Wikipedia (this is the only one reference of this sort I'm aware of) is knowing that all contents must be taken with a pinch -- or several handfuls -- of salt. I'd never use it as a main, or even a first point of reference, especially when there are so many other available sources out there, but I agree that for a quick, unimportant search it may be useful, and that in it one may find the pointers to continue searching elsewhere. Not to mention its updatedness (is there such a word?) for current information that would not have made its way to traditional reference sources yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Quote:
I think the key to using Wikipedia (this is the only one reference of this sort I'm aware of) is knowing that all contents must be taken with a pinch -- or several handfuls -- of salt. I'd never use it as a main, or even a first point of reference, especially when there are so many other available sources out there, but I agree that for a quick, unimportant search it may be useful, and that in it one may find the pointers to continue searching elsewhere. Not to mention its updatedness (is there such a word?) for current information that would not have made its way to traditional reference sources yet.
Also, sometimes, for bibliographical references.
Whatever its scholarly integrity, it's been a worthwhile experiment, they've developed a useful, how do you say, database structure, and ways may be found to make it, or something similar, more reliable. The access to what expertise there actually is there can be a pleasure.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,363
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
767
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
