mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Wikipedia has a discussion board:has anyone tried it? Options
maximus
Posted: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4:59:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/22/2010
Posts: 58
Neurons: 177
Location: On a round platter inside Farlex Database
I went to wikipedia the other day.They have changed the format.Has anyone used the discussions on it?Is it any good?
LUSUMO
Posted: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:02:35 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 6/29/2010
Posts: 1
Neurons: 3
Location: Chile
I also went and realize the same situation.
I really prefer the previous format, especially for searching.
I couldn't find any explanation related with changes...

Shame on you
AnthA1G
Posted: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:23:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/13/2010
Posts: 1,021
Neurons: 3,432
Location: New York City, New York, United States
I just went to check it out and it seems people started using the discussion tab. I used to check the discussions before, but people didn't even commented, I think the new 'format'/design attracts more people.
srirr
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:32:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,288

I had seen that on Wiki, but never tried my hands on it. Unable to comment on its features. But of course, the new look is better and more attractive.
Nappypoet
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:53:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/9/2009
Posts: 45
Neurons: 135
Location: Trinidad
The question still remains, however, is Wikipedia reliable or not and if it is to what extent...because at my University you would be scolded, looked down on, ridiculed even, if you even make the slightest mention of sourcing, perusing or glancing at Wikipedia.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:31:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,712
Neurons: 57,403
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Nappypoet - No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - which is why it is not suitable as an academic reference. In fact, I stopped using TFD as a tool once I found them citing Wikipedia as a source.

That said: if you are simply looking for an overview perhaps of a film star, or a place you've never heard of, it always comes up on the first page in most search engines, so a lot of people use it for convenience.

I'm sure that most people on a forum such as this realise the shortcomings of a site like Wikipedia, but it does worry me that there are others who feel that, because they usually associate "pedia" with the word Encylopedia, they have found a a credible source - to the extent that it is increasingly offered as provenance in serious discussion.

redsxz
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:17:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/27/2009
Posts: 1,081
Neurons: 5,425
Romany wrote:
Nappypoet - No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - which is why it is not suitable as an academic reference. In fact, I stopped using TFD as a tool once I found them citing Wikipedia as a source.

That said: if you are simply looking for an overview perhaps of a film star, or a place you've never heard of, it always comes up on the first page in most search engines, so a lot of people use it for convenience.

I'm sure that most people on a forum such as this realise the shortcomings of a site like Wikipedia, but it does worry me that there are others who feel that, because they usually associate "pedia" with the word Encylopedia, they have found a a credible source - to the extent that it is increasingly offered as provenance in serious discussion.



How isn't Wikipedia fairly reliable, they are expected to link to sites that support each claim in it, and its constantly changing, being updated. I dunno, I trust it pretty well.
nooblet
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:23:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/15/2009
Posts: 1,570
Neurons: 4,778
Location: United States
Romany wrote:
Nappypoet - No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - which is why it is not suitable as an academic reference. In fact, I stopped using TFD as a tool once I found them citing Wikipedia as a source.

That said: if you are simply looking for an overview perhaps of a film star, or a place you've never heard of, it always comes up on the first page in most search engines, so a lot of people use it for convenience.

I'm sure that most people on a forum such as this realise the shortcomings of a site like Wikipedia, but it does worry me that there are others who feel that, because they usually associate "pedia" with the word Encylopedia, they have found a a credible source - to the extent that it is increasingly offered as provenance in serious discussion.


I have to disagree with this for any entry that has reliable citations. While it is true that citing wikipedia is typically frowned upon, for every entry I've looked at regarding all three of the physical sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics), the citations there are spot on and are AMAZINGLY useful for finding great sources. NIH and research papers from reputable sources (both online and in print) are pretty much always cited on anything of this sort.

I wouldn't cite wikipedia, but it is a very useful tool for finding sources to cite, and a lot of the scientific entries have no room for bias.

Once you start looking at anything that could be twisted for a political agenda, you have to be careful, although many of those entries are flagged as having bias.
Raparee
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:25:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 1,228
Neurons: 18,102
nooblet wrote:
I have to disagree with this for any entry that has reliable citations. While it is true that citing wikipedia is typically frowned upon, for every entry I've looked at regarding all three of the physical sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics), the citations there are spot on and are AMAZINGLY useful for finding great sources. NIH and research papers from reputable sources (both online and in print) are pretty much always cited on anything of this sort.

I wouldn't cite wikipedia, but it is a very useful tool for finding sources to cite, and a lot of the scientific entries have no room for bias.

Once you start looking at anything that could be twisted for a political agenda, you have to be careful, although many of those entries are flagged as having bias.

Agreed. While I wouldn't generally cite wiki for anything official (here is another matter entirely), it is excellent for leading you to official and citeable sources. :)
AnthA1G
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:51:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/13/2010
Posts: 1,021
Neurons: 3,432
Location: New York City, New York, United States
Raparee wrote:
nooblet wrote:
I have to disagree with this for any entry that has reliable citations. While it is true that citing wikipedia is typically frowned upon, for every entry I've looked at regarding all three of the physical sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics), the citations there are spot on and are AMAZINGLY useful for finding great sources. NIH and research papers from reputable sources (both online and in print) are pretty much always cited on anything of this sort.

I wouldn't cite wikipedia, but it is a very useful tool for finding sources to cite, and a lot of the scientific entries have no room for bias.

Once you start looking at anything that could be twisted for a political agenda, you have to be careful, although many of those entries are flagged as having bias.

Agreed. While I wouldn't generally cite wiki for anything official (here is another matter entirely), it is excellent for leading you to official and citeable sources. :)


Let me add that Wikipedia is working hard on enforcing people to cite all their entries. If something you find doesn't have citation, you can help; if you don't and the work remains without citation for a certain period of time, Wikipedia deletes that entry.

IMO, Wikipedia is awesome and it's doing a great job for a non-profit organization.
schrodinger's cat
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:12:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/12/2010
Posts: 639
Neurons: 1,977
Location: Slovenia
In my University, it is also frowned upon to use Wikipedia in most cases. Actually, most internet sources are not recommended except some trustworthy sites of Universities or respectful organisations.

We had an interesting discussion on it in one of my classes. A Professor said that Wikipedia is not reliable as far as well known subjects are concerned because everyone thinks he/she is an expert on the matter. On the other hand, he said that scientific articles are quite correct, because an average person would not write about quantum physics or neuroscience. I assume that those who do are familiar with the subjects themselves and are well-versed in quoting sources.

RuthP
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:52:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
I think we are looking at changing sources and we do not (officially) trust the methods Wikipedia uses and we don't know how to "vet" the articles. That doesn't mean they are inaccurate.

The only actual study of accuracy of which I am aware was done by the journal "Nature" in 2005. Nature 15 December 2005: Special Report Internet Encyclopaedias go Head to Head To access the article you need a subscription, to pay, or get a copy through a library. (It's appalling a five year-old article is not in public domain!)

One can follow the "supplementary information" link to an MS Word document of the review specifics, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" link to see "Britannica's" January '06 rebuttal (PDF), and the "objections" link to a "Nature" response to points raised in the rebuttal (PDF).

Here are the BBC 12/2005 and CNET 12/2005 reports on the "Nature" article.

The conclusions reached in "Nature" were that there were errors in both. The type of error differed, but overall accuracy was similar.

It's a pity there isn't more recent independent work, because I understand that since 2005 Wikipedia has been working on ways to increase accuracy.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 4:57:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 595,331
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
With Wikipedia one has to use source criticism.
I use Wikipedia a lot but it's not my only source when I need accurate information.

Wikipedia's discussion pages have been there for years.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:22:09 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:


Wikipedia's discussion pages have been there for years.


Exactly. I was wondering the same thing.
As for accuracy, I think wiki is absolute 100% accurate with most science related articles. However, the political and other controversial articles are often 'flagged'. But then, they are debatable so it is obvious that people will have different views on them...
So all in all wiki is certainly a very reliable source, however, that I have found out only through cross checking. So, as JJ said, one must not rely only on wiki. Except for sciences, engineering and computers; everything seems perfect in wiki in these subjects. However, it may so happen that you will not find the information enough or as per your requirement. That certainly has happened to me quite a lot with wiki.
RuthP
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:22:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
With Wikipedia one has to use source criticism.
I use Wikipedia a lot but it's not my only source when I need accurate information.

Wikipedia's discussion pages have been there for years.
I've never really used those pages, but that's a good idea. I tend to look at the sources listed for the article to gauge reliability and / or I use Wikipedia as a start for more search terms.

I do find most of the topics where I feel I already know something to be pretty reliable.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:31:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,712
Neurons: 57,403
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Ruth - one of the people in my Honours class was doing their thesis on Wikipedia - unfortunately I can't remember the person's name. However, if you go onto one of the sites which accesses theses you might find it. Or another. My classmate's thesis was published in 2006.

As to why Wiki is not reliable - I think Shroedinger and others have covered that. I don't have the brains to be a scientist, but most certainly in the fields of Literature, Drama and Ancient History I've come across some absolute howlers some of which, in fact, are nothing more than urban legends.

My personal take on the issue is that the Net is a remarkable tool, which provides access to the kind of knowledge which was once confined only to scholars. Completely free of charge one can become privy to the most accurate information and the product of the most remarkable minds the world has known. Why settle for inaccuracies, second-hand knowledge, or possible bias?

rahul
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:54:29 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/1/2010
Posts: 35
Neurons: 105
Location: India
No i have'nt used the discussion board nor do i care to
dusty
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:15:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,770
Neurons: 5,765
nooblet wrote:

I have to disagree with this for any entry that has reliable citations. While it is true that citing wikipedia is typically frowned upon, for every entry I've looked at regarding all three of the physical sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics), the citations there are spot on and are AMAZINGLY useful for finding great sources. NIH and research papers from reputable sources (both online and in print) are pretty much always cited on anything of this sort.

I wouldn't cite wikipedia, but it is a very useful tool for finding sources to cite, and a lot of the scientific entries have no room for bias.

Once you start looking at anything that could be twisted for a political agenda, you have to be careful, although many of those entries are flagged as having bias.


Wikipedia is NOT accurate, especially in regards to sciences. It should only be used for basic principles or basic definitions. To be honest, I have no idea why people would go to the trouble to posts on topics that are completely fabricated, but if I had to guess it would be politically motivated in order for the assertions that get twisted by the mainstream media to appear as if they coincide with facts.

The interwebs are filled with what I call "counterfeit facts and counterfeit knowledge" and it really is a shame. Reputable scientific journals will probably have to start using secure htpps if they really want to market their publications to the general public as apposed to a very specialized niche of graduate or advanced degree researchers. There are too many resources online that appear as if they are actual scientific journals but they are not.

Wikipedia is an awesome resource, but they fall short due to a lack of people who have the depth of knowledge to be able to read through and be able to quickly identify what is fishy and should really be looked into. It is a great concept and does have a wealth of info that is due to countless hours of passionate volunteers. Wiki also has a unique quality that no Academic or more accurate authority can provide, and that peculiar side of the "truth," as it is the story that the public accepts as "facts"

To governments, that can be a very important facet of the truth.

We are on the verge of some seriously transitions and things could get fairly crazy if there is no authority to turns to when just the right amount of damaging misinformation get released. I would plead with journalists to please be conscious about what you write as there are so many online publications that use a charts or graphs that says absolutely nothing as far as data that can be translated into cause and affect. I no that much of it is humor, but if we are not careful with bad info or stretching truths, it will come back to bite US.

The Free Dictionary is currently my favorite reference source. Wikipedia is great for many encyclopedic terms or concepts, but it would really be great if there was a source Elsevier that got along with more authoritative groups of editors.
dusty
Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2012 1:53:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,770
Neurons: 5,765
What I meant, was that Elsevier's publications are by far an authoritative source. It would be ideal to use their publications for science and medical. As there is a world of difference. Reputable, true scientific journals do not have to be verified, as that is the whole point of journalism in the scientific community. It is a different world, as the news they are distributing has been verified.

We may possibly come to depend on such authorities in the future of the world wide web, to protect knowledge, to ensure that it is accessible to all who ask earnestly, that they shall receive
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.