wikipedia (1 Viewer)

[The General]

I love wikipedia, it's a valuable resource.

My only problem is that I find so much "misinformation" on there that I get frustrated.

Just because it's on wikipedia doesn't mean it's true.


Your thoughts?

 

[theBaron]

You are correct, because of the ease of access, and the sheer amount of information, you have to take what you read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt.

Of course, that goes for any printed material, whether in hard copy or e-format. But there is a vestige of that cultural belief, that arose in a time when literacy was at its lowest, that something printed must be true, because the written word was so rare, and only a few could interpret those squiggles on the page.

I would expand your statement about Wikipedia to cover everything.

Though the words "skeptical" and "critical" carry negative connotations in the popular tongue, we need to think of those words in their literal or forensic senses, when we read something, Does the author have an ax to grind? Does he know what he's talking about?

Prost!
Brad

 

[sceic2]

I use wikipedia frequently. For me it is a good starting point for investigating a subject. I always double check, sometimes triple check, information from wikipedia simply because of it's (wikipedia's) reputation. Most often the subjects I am researching are not controversial enough that anyone would bother to put rumor or false information on it, but who knows so I always check it out with other sources.

 

[Uthred]

I love wikipedia, it's a valuable resource.

My only problem is that I find so much "misinformation" on there that I get frustrated.

Just because it's on wikipedia doesn't mean it's true.


Your thoughts?

As a writer I know it's not always what we read, but what we believe that matters. That said Wikipedia could be a terrific tool if only people writing the articles knew what they're talking about. Since that's not always the case, wiikipedia will remain a poor option to make a research.

Kids love it! But then again, do you know any kid who cares about accuracy?

 

[The General]

Wikipedia could be a terrific tool if only people writing the articles knew what they're talking about.

That's it in a nutshell I think.

 

[Spitfrnd]

As a writer I know it's not always what we read, but what we believe that matters. That said Wikipedia could be a terrific tool if only people writing the articles knew what they're talking about. Since that's not always the case, wiikipedia will remain a poor option to make a research.
...

Well in all fairness, Wikipedia is a consumer contribution "project" and as such it remains a work in progress. There are many, many well done and accurate sections and many incomplete and inaccurate ones. It is designed to and has gotten better as people contribute additions and corrections. So rather than complaining, it is more productive to use the contribution process there to address any inaccuracy you find to help promote its evolution. It is already extremely useful and can only be made more so with the help of people who know better.

All the said, I also agree that if you really want accuracy, you must examine and verify everything you read.