|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
I know people swear by Wikipedia but I never go there.
I get all a-tizzy when I find out that dictionaries add a fake word to protect their copyrights, so knowing that Wikipedia is peppered with erroneous info makes me avoid it like the plague.
If you don't know something, and you go to a source of information, you have to believe it is accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Aware of my own ignorance, I take comfort reading what others don't know.
(quality of writing an indicator of reliability)
Last edited by inselpeter; 10/19/05 02:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
From the blog: who the heck is "famed lawyer Hesham Foda"?) One of the things the name anagrams to is...MADE HASH OF.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
In my view, the argument
The commonest is: If you don't like an entry, you can fix it yourself. Which is rather like going to a restaurant for a date, being served terrible food, and then being told by the waiter where to find the kitchen.
is blatantly unfair: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
And then, one man's "real expert" is another person's propaganda minister.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> there is no such thing as a free lunch.
And then, one man's "real expert" is another person's propaganda minister.
Agreed. I haven't really used wiki much, but I recently found the 'current events' section surprisingly good. While surveying information on Hurricane Katrina I found the wiki entry to be nothing if not thorough. Sure, it may be that a few errors creep in now and again but these are entries about complex, ongoing events and mistakes are fine as long as they are updated as the errors come to light. Wiki doesn't fulfil the 'dead tree' requirements cause it is very different from them and generally vastly more useful and interesting as an everyday reference tool (not for research), and its cheaper and faster.
I think the layout here is crucial too and they have it nailed. Is it a hodge-podge? For some entries it certainly is. And sometimes that's exactly what you want - an overview. Fact remains that for a good number of topics there is no place on the Net that offers such a wide range of hodge-podge in one place:-)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 203
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 203 |
The utility of an encyclopedia is directly proportional to the reliability of its entries.
Surely the very idea of an open-content encyclopedia is doomed to failure?
A proliferation of bogus articles, vandalism, the misinformation of bored and ignorant Netizens with a didactic itch.
So how can Wikipedia survive when any cretin with a computer can edit, delete or create articles?
The explaination given in Time (It's a Wiki, Wiki World, June 6, 2005) explains:
"Naturally, there are also a lot of idiots, vandals and fanatics, who take advantage of Wikipedia's open system to deface, delete or push one-sided views. Sometimes extreme action has to be taken. [..] But for the most part, the geeks have a huge advantage: they care more. Wikipedia lets you put your favorite articles on a watch list and notifies you if anyone else adds to or changes them. 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."
[Chris Taylor]
"Open-content encyclopedias are a useful example of how information can involve in synergistic homeostasis."
-- Richard K. Edel, Boulevard, 2005, 'Epistemology in the Age of Digital Reproduction' Autonomedia, Semiotext(e)
But one is still tempted to quote Eliot :
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
-- T. S. Eliot, The Rock, 1934.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> Not to mention its updatedness for current information that would not have made its way to traditional reference sources yet.
Yeah, this is where a lot of the arguments against wiki fall down. Kevin Hall writes:
"... a true encyclopedia is an enormous undertaking ...Single entries may take months to write before they are even sent for review by people with legitimate expertise."
Okay, but it's not an encyclopedia though, it's wikipedia, and its a good reference tool in the sense that entries link to a broad range of useful and 'reliable' sources which can be directly accessed. So even if you question the entire content of wiki - every word - show me a vastly better free tool (online or off) for finding an overview of resources on a subject. There ain't many. Search engines don't fit the bill. Besides, a good portion of the current event information is embedded from participating sites - they must be evaluated on their own merits within the frame of wiki.
Another Register article comments 'Wikipedia is fast becoming the number-one online resource for web surfers ...in what must be a sad comment on the ability for traditional news media to keep its audiences well-informed.'
Look at what is on offer as general resources for viewing current news items - Google News, Yahoo, newsbots, etc. None of these are as simple and well laid out as wiki, none of these offer a broad face on a topic and cumulate information on one(!) web page as the events happen, but rather offer a mass of syndicated 'snap-shot' articles which are all almost identical in a query result list. These articles repeat information related in other previous articles over and over again too for the sake of context. This is inefficient - pure and simple. Those who hate wiki should propose a better general resource to the oh-so ignorant masses who choose to drill down to Internet links with the *visually clean and objective resource of wiki.
Sod truth, we'll get to that, make it pretty first. Time.com is an ugly mess full of ads and pop-ups. Economist.com costs money. Foxnews.com is, um, selective. Other sites offer only endless rewritten agency texts. Where is this other great general reference tool? Ahhh, there ain't one. Now we see why wiki is still useful - despite its many flaws.
Last edited by belligerentyouth; 10/28/05 12:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
A blog entry on an opinion published by the Guardian about the confession of Orlowski about a single Wikipedia entry. Made for goodly Saturday afternoon reading.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
guess I can Basque in the glory...
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
BY claims that wikipedia is "objective". While that's very debatable, the lack of objectivity among its supporters is not. My position on this has always been the same - not anti-wikipedia, just anti wikiolatry. Sadly, it seems that to use the one, one must practice the other. Large chunks of Wikipedia are utter crap, but saying so brings down the wrath of the faithful. It also brings out the defensive "look what else is out there" type of responses. If any other resource was being so uncritically accepted as the repository of absolute truth, there would be an outcry, but Wikipedia appears to be off-limits apparently. As a final contribution to this amusing little stirring of the waters of wiki-passion, I offer a comparison of Wikipedia and Linux http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/wikipedia_britannica_and_linux/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I just think it's a resource. a sometimes (oftimes?) imperfect one, and as I said earlier, one that I use more as a link to deeper information. but is this becoming and baby and bathwater thing?
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
wikiolatry
A most worthy addition to the lexicon!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
It strikes me that the wikiolators (i.e., those that declaim YDGI) must belileve they're playing at something like Hesse's Glass Bead Game. -joe 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Quote:
It strikes me that the wikiolators (i.e., those that declaim YDGI) must belileve they're playing at something like Hesse's Glass Bead Game.
-joe
Or either the beta test of the precursor to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
Quote:
Quote:
It strikes me that the wikiolators (i.e., those that declaim YDGI) must belileve they're playing at something like Hesse's Glass Bead Game.
-joe
Or either the beta test of the precursor to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, one.
You mean this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
uncritically accepted as the repository of absolute truth, ..arent'you stretching the point just a little bit? This sounds like bogeyman rhetoric to my ears.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
Quote:
uncritically accepted as the repository of absolute truth, ..arent'you stretching the point just a little bit? This sounds like bogeyman rhetoric to my ears.
I didn't say that everybody feels that way, but wikiolaters do, and there are plenty of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Wikipedia accurate as Britannica--AP circa Dec 15
...is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote...[using] peer review....Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts
Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found--including misinterpretations of important concepts, four came from each source....
...the free service...having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics....not covered in Britannica
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Don't Panic shirts/towels
High quality silkscreen 100s of other new and retro designs
www.mondotees.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
Quote:
Wikipedia accurate as Britannica--AP circa Dec 15
...is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote...[using] peer review....Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts
Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found--including misinterpretations of important concepts, four came from each source....
...the free service...having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics....not covered in Britannica
It turns out that Nature may itself have been a very naughty mag on this survey. It's certainly got Britannica rather cross:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
That's the most appalling scandal that Nature concocted. I am genuinely stunned at how such a reputable journal can have sunk so low. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
Quote:
That's the most appalling scandal that Nature concocted. I am genuinely stunned at how such a reputable journal can have sunk so low.
I've just started reading the PDF from Britannica - wow are they mad!! But Nature's sticking to their guns, with a tersely dismissive response of their own, on their website.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
