Ship of Fools: Our touching faith in Wikipedia

Thread: Our touching faith in Wikipedia Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023863

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

I notice a lot of store placed on Wikipedia on these boards. It's a touching faith given how much utter nonsense it carriers. Here's my latest favourite .

What's your favourite bit of Wikipedia madness and, more seriously, how much store should we really place on it?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

The article seems to criticise Wikipedia for checking the changes people want to make to pages. That's how Wikipedia tries to stop errors or contentious opinions appearing. It doesn't just print everything that someone who claims to know best wants it to print. An odd criticism.

I think Wikipedia is a remarkable and wonderful resource.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

There have been some high profile issues, but there have been studies that suggest Wikipedia is no more inaccurate overall than Britannica or Encarta.

Study by Nature. Here is an article referencing other studies.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Must say I agree with lilB & hatless. Of course I check other sources thoroughly before using any info I glean from wiki for anything important, but as a truly encyclopedic resource of first resort I think it is remarkable.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

It's what we used to call "quick and dirty"-- which means, good enough. When you have the time or interest, when you're doing academic work, or when the stakes are high, then you should take the time to explore primary sources and do good, scholarly research. Wiki would not be a good source for a master's thesis. If your child has leukemia, you don't want to depend on a wiki entry.

But lots of times the stakes aren't that high. You're curious, or wanna settle a bar bet, but don't have enough skin in the game to invest the time to hunt down more scholarly sources. In my experience, in such circumstances, wiki is "good enough". It'll give you a general, reasonably accurate overview, and provide a bibliography of useful sources for if/when you want to dig deeper.

[ 11. September 2012, 22:04: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
I notice a lot of store placed on Wikipedia on these boards. It's a touching faith given how much utter nonsense it carriers. Here's my latest favourite .

What's your favourite bit of Wikipedia madness and, more seriously, how much store should we really place on it?

The article is a load of tosh, frankly. It's a complaint that they don't let you say "this entry is about ME, let ME edit it".

There is an explicit rule against this for a very obvious reason. Having spent a small amount of time earlier this year creating an entry and being at the 'back end' for a little while, I was astounded to see just how many people were trying to create entries about themselves.

There's a constant effort to nip these in the bud.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, should be up there "on my say-so". It should all be verifiable. The information was duly changed when a verifiable source was provided. So the article is basically a hissy fit about having to actually provide a link instead of being able to pick up the telephone and say "OI! CHANGE MY ENTRY!"

People do LIE about themselves, you know.

[ 11. September 2012, 22:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Must say I agree with lilB & hatless. Of course I check other sources thoroughly before using any info I glean from wiki for anything important, but as a truly encyclopedic resource of first resort I think it is remarkable.

I have slowly come to a point of view similar to that of Chesterbelloc. I was once most dismissive of Wikipedia as an entry relating to a literary friend was frequently edited with false and libellous information (and once, amusingly, obscenely-- mind you, she thought it was funnier than I did), to the point that it was frozen. However, over the years, the multi-sourcing has worked better, as have the warnings, and so it is not bad as a first-glance source. I find it very helpful for really obscure princely families but only wish that it was as good for bishoprics in partibus-- but it's early days yet.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. Since most articles are reasonably well documented I think that it is handy for the kind of questions that tend to come up on these boards. It is also good for finding quick facts when doing casual presentations.

But I agree with those who say that for school work or serious study it is not enough. It's not a primary source.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's not a primary source.

Which is exactly what Wikipedia says. Neither is any encyclopaedia a primary source.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

The community of editors at Wikipedia have collectively decided that it is going to be a compilation of information from secondary sources. There may be an editor or two who can actually challenge conventional wisdom with original research and primary sources. But you are supposed to do that in peer reviewed research journals. It will result in an odd situation where someone who actually knows something to be absolutely true on first-hand knowledge cannot make a change. But most people who edit wikipedia are not that expert, so on the whole it makes sense to limit them to secondary sources.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I use it a lot, mostly to check on terribly obscure princely families, minor reformers and ancient heretics--generally for unlikely sounding spellings (but you never know, do you?) and the full titles of abbreviated Latin works. Occasionally some fool will try to tell me that Luther wrote Contra Celsum or the like. I get further in the resulting discussion if I can take 10 seconds to tell them who really wrote it--Thomas Jefferson, of course! [Devil]

[ 12. September 2012, 00:37: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by the gnome (# 14156) on :

I use Wikipedia nearly every day, both for my work and in my personal life. But I don't rely on it as the ultimate oracle of truth. Here are my suggestions:

1. Look for cited sources for any unusual claims you run across on Wikipedia. If there aren't any sources cited, feel free to be dubious. If there are, try to judge how reliable those sources are likely to be. The cited sources on Wikipedia range from ironclad to shoddy.

2. If the topic is one that a lot of people care about (say, "cats" or "Barack Obama," as opposed to "''Geum peckii''" or "Theodore of Amasea"), check out the talk page (and any archived talk pages), not only the article itself. This will give you a sense of what controversies have raised their ugly heads in the course of the article's history.

3. Speaking of which, check out the article's history by looking at a few earlier versions of the article to see whether it's changed significantly from year to year.

4. Lastly, if the Wikipedia article on a topic contradicts what you thought you knew about the topic in question, look for other online authorities to help you decide whether to trust your prior knowledge or Wikipedia's assertion.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The discussions here on the Ship can get really arcane. Many of us find it delightful, but Wiki is the only resource that is easily accessible for obscure but interesting things like 4th Century heretics or a list of the contents of the Nag Hammadi Library.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It is dangerous to use for things that are controversial, since opposing sides can go in and edit articles to support their position. But for ho-hum things that nobody is going to be bickering a lot over (who was the 10th king of Bulgaria? in what year did Billy Joel release "Piano Man"?) it's a great quick source.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

I was once quite skeptical about Wikipedia. But when checking it on matters I know something about (psychology, some particular areas of music, and a few other arcane crannies of knowledge) I have quite consistently found it to be pretty accurate. There are times when I would have liked to add some detail or context (someday I may figure out how to do that, or they'll make it more user friendly), but I've never run across a real howler on a topic that wasn't intensely controversial (those mostly being political). I've seen a few complaints about their refusal to accept primary sources (including scientists wanting their own unpublished research included), but that's not what encyclopedias are for.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I've seen a few complaints about their refusal to accept primary sources (including scientists wanting their own unpublished research included), but that's not what encyclopedias are for.

Well there's the recent Philip Roth case which is quite amusing and intriguing. It's not clear to me whether they corrected the article because of the publicity or because Roth's open letter was considered a secondary source.

Either way it's tempting to think of this.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
I notice a lot of store placed on Wikipedia on these boards. It's a touching faith given how much utter nonsense it carriers. Here's my latest favourite .

What's your favourite bit of Wikipedia madness and, more seriously, how much store should we really place on it?

I notice you place a lot of store on the press on this board. It's a touching faith given how much utter nonsense the press carries.

What's your favourite bit of press madness and, more seriously, how much store should we really place in it?

{In my humble view, Wikipedia comes out reasonably well in any comparison with the press.}

The moral of the story is: we all make use of a variety of fallible authorities, and we learn from experience where and how far they are reliable. Or else we watch Faux News and get completely taken in all the time. Wikipedia is so large, and so diverse in its voluntary editorial personnel, that you can always find a howler or two. Doesn't make it bad when you look at the overall accuracy compared to other media.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I will say that wikipedia particularly shines in mathematics and physics. It's written at just the right level for me, as a teacher of those subjects, to refresh my understanding of more obscure topics and check formulas. It's also extremely accurate in those areas.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Wikipedia can be useful but controversial articles or the very obscure articles are the most likely to be error ridden. My favorite now only in the archives managed to merge 5 people called Joseph Fry into 2 (and thereby had Elizabeth Fry marry someone who was 13 years in the grave).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
The moral of the story is: we all make use of a variety of fallible authorities,

There isn't any other kind.

Good to see you, MSHB.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

It's good enough for what I want in general life or a chat board.

Not for an academic paper.

M.

[ 12. September 2012, 06:22: Message edited by: M. ]

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

I've used it as a starting point for various academic disertations etc - I follow up the cited references (as well as doing various journal searches etc) to see if any would be useful & credible. Many have been, and give further citations to follow up.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I have a terrible job persuading my children to cite anything else in their homework. But I'm not really convinced it is any less accurate than physical books they might borrow from the public library or other websites they might visit. Just don't tell them that.

More than anything else, I think it is remarkable. A record of accessible information unrivaled anywhere else. OK, yes, it isn't as good as a university library, but it isn't pretending to be.

As a quick beginning for the curious, I think it is outstanding. For a deeper examination of the arguments and/or to settle facts, probably not.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
I notice a lot of store placed on Wikipedia on these boards. It's a touching faith given how much utter nonsense it carriers.

You have a better quick reference source for those who are curious about/interested in a subject for the first time?

Let me know and I'll have a look. Meanwhile Wikipedia suits my needs very well.

As people have said above, I don't rely on it but it's a remarkable resource, Saves three shelves of my bookcase where the (out of date) encyclopedia used to dwell.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is dangerous to use for things that are controversial, since opposing sides can go in and edit articles to support their position. But for ho-hum things that nobody is going to be bickering a lot over (who was the 10th king of Bulgaria? in what year did Billy Joel release "Piano Man"?) it's a great quick source.

I wouldn't say it was "dangerous" so long as people don't consider it to be infallible. On contentious issues there might be two similar articles on the same topic which tell completely different stories - but books are like that anyway.

Wikipedia is always good IMHO as a first port of call, but shouldn't be cited as THE final authority.

Do you ever use OrhtodoxWiki mousethief?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I'm not sure there is such thing as THE final authority on anything.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I found you there anyway Truman White [Big Grin]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Do you ever use OrhtodoxWiki mousethief?

Yes. Why do you ask?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I looked up the entry in Wikipedia on The Human Stain. What is says is;

quote:
It had been frequently claimed or suggested by critics, such as Michiko Kakutani, Janet Maslin, Lorrie Moore, Touré, and Brent Staples, that the character Coleman Silk was inspired by Anatole Broyard, a mixed-race author and editor who was able to pass as white, due to Silk also passing himself off as white in the story. (linksx4 to references). However, Roth stated in a 2008 interview that he had not known of Broyard's ancestry when he started writing the book and only learned of it months later.(link to reference)

I glean from this that there is obviously a controversy about whether Mr P Roth based his character on another or not. Which to my reading Wikipedia reports fairly, citing the sources who claim one thing and Mr P Roth who claims another. Mr P Roth, from the article, would like to be taken as the last word on the matter and have the article edited to show this. This seems inappropriate to me, and he hasn't been allowed to.

All very much supporting my touching faith in wikipedia.

(Interesting how if you have faith in something may or may not be a good thing. Touching faith is usually naive, though, and only slightly better than blind faith. All the work that would be required to assess the faith rationally can be short-circuited by a well-chosen adjective.)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I wouldn't say it was "dangerous" so long as people don't consider it to be infallible.

There's little that can't be dangerous if considered infallible.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I found you there anyway Truman White

I'm far too obscure for Wikipedia Boogie [Biased]

. Mind you, I swear by the Orthodox wiki.

Still can't get my head around the idea that an author's statements on his private motivations can be taken as definitive if published in one place, but are only valid in another place if a couple of other people agree with him. What validates a comment- the source or where it's published?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't think any print encyclopaedia would carry the account "The following motivation has been inferred by others (refs a-c), but when we telephoned the author was robustly refuted."

There are presumably similarities that are a matter of public record, and commentators have commented, and been quoted.

The author has also commented on the allegations, publicly, and his public response has been quoted in the article.

That the motivation may have been private doesn't really mean that only the author can credibly comment and all other comment is void. The author may have a strong conflict of interest in claiming total originality, for instance. There may be very clear lines of evidence to suggest that the character is, in fact, based on previous accounts.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Do you ever use OrhtodoxWiki mousethief?
Yes. Why do you ask?

No reason - just curious. I've noticed that some of the OrthodoxWiki articles are copied across from wikipedia, while others are edited versions.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

I like what the Gnome wrote. If it's important to you whether or not something is accurate you should always check your source and make sure it really says what you represent it as saying, and try and make sure it's credible. Wikipedia gets fun when you move from basic facts to carefully chosen compilations of data designed to land with a particular spin.

But if you think an article is biased you can always have a stab at editing it [Smile]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm not sure there is such thing as THE final authority on anything.

I think there is - God

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm not sure there is such thing as THE final authority on anything.
I think there is - God

Unfortunately it's hard to verify that any given communication channel purporting to link directly from God really does. The ontology is willing, the the epistemology is weak.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The ontology is willing, the the epistemology is weak.

oooh, I so wanna steal that for a tag line...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The ontology is willing, [but] the epistemology is weak.
oooh, I so wanna steal that for a tag line...

If you do, fix the the stutter!

[ 12. September 2012, 22:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I found you there anyway Truman White
I'm far too obscure for Wikipedia Boogie . Mind you, I swear by the Orthodox wiki.

Still can't get my head around the idea that an author's statements on his private motivations can be taken as definitive if published in one place, but are only valid in another place if a couple of other people agree with him. What validates a comment- the source or where it's published?

Neither.

You need to wrap your head around the hearsay rule, basically. There's a difference between verifying that "Roth said ..." and verifying that what Roth said is in fact true.

Would you edit Hitler's Wikipedia page if he rang up and said "excuse me, I did NOT order the extermination of Jews"? You might edit it to say that Hitler DENIED ordering the extermination of Jews. Which is different to saying "Hitler did not order the extermination of Jews".

[ 13. September 2012, 03:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it's a working draft. So some parts are nowhere near ready for prime time, and other parts are good enough for a traditional encyclopedia. Most are somewhere in between.

The folks at Wikipedia have worked hard at making it better. I frequently use it--mostly for citing on the Ship--but I try to make sure the article seems reasonably sane and understandable, and (preferably) cites some external sources.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think there is - God

Citation needed.

On another note one group of conservatives got so angry at not being able to edit wikipedia to their own satisfaction they created this:
Conservapedia

For anyone who's not visited it before I can tell you that it appears not to be a hoax and that their page listing all the "Liberal bias" in wikipedia is......interesting.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think there is - God
Citation needed.

I guess it's easy to say George, and I believe it to be true, but how that Authority is transmitted to us is another question. We would say Holy Tradition (which is where the Bible came from).

I know this is 1000 miles away from the OP, which is about the reliability of Wikipedia.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it's a working draft. So some parts are nowhere near ready for prime time, and other parts are good enough for a traditional encyclopedia. Most are somewhere in between.

The folks at Wikipedia have worked hard at making it better. I frequently use it--mostly for citing on the Ship--but I try to make sure the article seems reasonably sane and understandable, and (preferably) cites some external sources.

Apologies for double post, but yes, I think you've got it Golden Key. In other words, it is a work in progress.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

On another note one group of conservatives got so angry at not being able to edit wikipedia to their own satisfaction they created this:
Conservapedia

this site is good for a laugh on a wet weekend!

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Actualy I've just skimmed it again and it does make interesting reading. Liberal bias in wikipedia

Their entry on feminism however.....

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The ontology is willing, [but] the epistemology is weak.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
oooh, I so wanna steal that for a tag line...

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you do, fix the the stutter!

I'll fix the stutter on quotes file.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Actualy I've just skimmed it again and it does make interesting reading. Liberal bias in wikipedia

This is my favourite.

quote:
Wikipedia's article on dinosaurs contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the best of the public

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

On another note one group of conservatives got so angry at not being able to edit wikipedia to their own satisfaction they created this:
Conservapedia

Thanks very much George. I shall enjoy browsing through the site when I have more time!

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

This is my favourite.

quote:
Wikipedia's article on dinosaurs contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the best of the public

That's a good one. Reading Conservapedia leaves me in no doubt that 'dinosaur-like creatures' exist today [Biased]

.

I noticed that Conservapedia criticise Wikipedia for having a higher proportion of criticism in their page on Anne Coulter than in their page on Michael Moore. It's a good thing that Consevapedia doesn't do things like that, right?

I find it instructive to compare the level of criticism in the Conservapedia page on 'liberal' to the level of criticsm in their page on 'conservative'. Apparently, liberals favour "censorship of Christianity" and their preferred economic policy is "similar to that of fascism". Conservapedia's first three main headings on 'liberal' are "Liberals and Uncharitableness", "Liberalism and bestiality" and "Liberals and Superstition".

But Consevapedia isn't biased, right ... ? For their first main heading for 'conservative', in place of "Liberals and Uncharitableness" they have a "Hall of Fame" with a list of conservatives who have been elected President of the United States.

It seems that, for Consevapedia, 'liberal bias' means a failure to equate conservatives with facts, values and virtue - and liberals with lies, intolerance and fascism. Their own approach to 'conservative' and 'liberal' isn't at all inconsistent with their criticm of Wikipedia's approach to Anne Coulter and Michael Moore, right [Biased]

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

... and the scrupulous fairness of Conservapedia is even clearer when you compare their page on Michael Moore ("a left-wing Communist filmmaker and conspiracy theorist ... Moore's films and television programs represent some of the most egregious examples of deceitful liberal propaganda in contemporary American political discourse") with their page on Anne Coulter (who "... frequently nails liberals to the wall with deadly accuracy... sometimes answers liberals in their own coin, making a remark that first appears just as outrageous as the worst of theirs, but with a witty ironic spin that proves she knows what she is talking about.") If only Wikipedia could show the same determination to avoid bias ... [Biased]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The top 10 pages list on Conservapedia is always worth a read. When I first encountered it, something like 8 out of the top 10 were about homosexuality. Obsessed much?

Of course, more recently when I checked there were multiple Obama pages winning the popularity stakes.

It's harder to find now, but I see that today's top 10 has "homosexual agenda" at 2, with Obama only placed at 4 BUT with "Muslim agenda of the Obama administration" backing it up at 7. Plain and simple homosexuality is nowhere to be found. Wikipedia is competing hard, with its main entry at 6 and it's examples of bias at 9.

The pack is rounded out by the main page (psht. does that even count?), atheism, Adolf Hitler, "counterexamples to Relativity" (?) and the Conservative Bible Project. See, now I'm going to have to find out why the Bible I thought was perfectly good actually has some kind of liberal bias.

EDIT: Wow. Seriously, conservatives have a problem with the theory of relativity? As in Einstein? THIS is a new one to me.

[ 13. September 2012, 13:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Second wow. The Conservative Bible does NOT have Jesus on the cross saying "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Apparently this has been inserted as a liberal distortion.

Marcion is alive and well I see.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

On another note one group of conservatives got so angry at not being able to edit wikipedia to their own satisfaction they created this:
Conservapedia
Thanks very much George. I shall enjoy browsing through the site when I have more time!

Actually, I've become a bit disillusioned. I liked the Creationist stuff, but it seems very politicised. When I got to stuff about Capitalism = the good guys and anything slightly left leaning = the bad guys, well I lost interest.

No, I'm interested in the arguments which question evolution, but the site seems to have a whole Capitalist/Republican/Evangelical Fundamentalist agenda - I can't subscribe to all that!

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it's a working draft. So some parts are nowhere near ready for prime time, and other parts are good enough for a traditional encyclopedia. Most are somewhere in between.

The folks at Wikipedia have worked hard at making it better. I frequently use it--mostly for citing on the Ship--but I try to make sure the article seems reasonably sane and understandable, and (preferably) cites some external sources.

Insightful comment (IMHO).

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
I notice a lot of store placed on Wikipedia on these boards. It's a touching faith given how much utter nonsense it carriers.
You have a better quick reference source for those who are curious about/interested in a subject for the first time?.

That's a good challenge. Encyclopedia's generally are riven with innacuracies. They tend to be best when you want straightforward factual information, a point repeatedly well made on this thread. Their value starts to diminish when you get into areas of commentary and interpretation. Thinking about it we are in a highly dynamic information environment and we have the luxury through the WWW of being able to test data in a discursive environment. So my answer to your question about a 'better source' would be a social network site where you have a broad range of expertise from which to draw. Wikipedia plus Ship of Fools - what more could you want?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Wikipedia plus Ship of Fools - what more could you want?

Precisely! We don't know when we're well off! [Smile]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

One for heaven and one for earth. [Two face]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. Since most articles are reasonably well documented I think that it is handy for the kind of questions that tend to come up on these boards. It is also good for finding quick facts when doing casual presentations.

I'd say "Wikipedia is only as good as its editors". This is an obvious enough point perhaps. What I mean is that Wikipedia articles are highly variable, depending on which bunch of enthusiasts look after the articles. Plenty attract attention from university academics and people genuinely expert in their subjects. These articles are excellent. Others really are not: while they might not often contain factual inaccuracies, they will often be slanted to reflect fashion, or the hobby-horses of editorial cliques who would be better off scratching their pimply bottoms.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0