Wikipedia

Lukus

Lukus

Testament to the ghoul lifespan
Orderite
You know it, you love it... Or do you?

To state the obvious, Wikipedia is huge. Over 2,400,000 articles in English as of July 2008, and over 10 million articles altogether, in 253 languages, as of April (source: Wikipedia).

The main argument(s) against wikipedia seems to lie in the question(s) of its reliability and accuracy (including consensus over credentials, etc). This makes me ask the following questions:


* How much of what is written on the internet is empirically reliable?
* How empirically reliable are all the other impressions that a regular person is submitted to during a day?
* If the answer to either or both of the above two questions is something along the lines of "very little", why the big fuzz about Wikipedias reliability? Because 'so many people use it'?
* If people do not understand that Wikipedia is not a definitive source and collection of real ultimate knowledge, are they not to be considered as somewhat stupid people, and doesn't the issue then become 'People are Stupid', and not Wikipedia?
* Haven't stupid people always existed, and will they not continue to exist with mankind?

The main "problem" that I would guess comes from people collecting all their knowledge from Wikipedia, would be that they then continue to cite this knowledge at social gatherings and at parties; either making fools of themselves if they are caught, or continuing to spread poor information to others like a virus, who in turn will also risk A) looking like a fool at a party, or B) infecting even more people with stupidity, etc. I wouldn't think important scientists cite Wikipedia as a source in their groundbreaking essays (unless they're sociologists investigating social structures somehow related to Wikipedia).

I mean, did you know that you unknowingly swallow 8 spiders in your sleep during a lifetime?... This myth existed before Wikipedia, along with countless others. What myths are Wikipedia spreading that critics feel are undermining intelligent society?

I guess university n00bs cite Wikipedia, but even so, why wouldn't they? If a moron writes a book, citing this morons work is the same thing, only I would guess there are more books in the world that were written by morons than there are articles on Wikipedia (seeing as how the majority of the people who ever walked the earth were morons... not including you, of course, I'm sure you're special!)

Seriously though, what's the beef with it? Ok, so it may be making the process faster for stupid people to collect and distribute 'knowledge'. However, it also contributes to exploring ones curiosity and thirst for knowledge, since it makes a great deal of knowledge readily available - knowledge that one would otherwise never have bothered to seek. I'm guessing most of what's written on Wikipedia is accurate. Regardless, smart people will know to make the accurate distinction between reliable knowledge and something they've picked up before getting involved in an elaborate discussion with a professor. We humans tend to "pick up" stuff all the time, register it, and then repeat it without recalling the source in detail. Is Wikipedia only encouraging this problem to grow, or is it a source of inspiration for internetmankind?

I'm just getting a Wiki-hating vibe going on. What's up with that?
 
I'm going to sum up my beef with Wikipedia by paraphrasing a true and real case.

Luke had a porn site which claimed, on the front page, to have 100 babes in it. However, you could easily count the babes and find that there were only 50. On Wikipedia's page on Luke's porn site the sidebar read, among other items: "Number of babes: 100". I posted on the talk page to say that the number of babes was evidently wrong. I was then told by an editor that my babe count constituted origenal resaerche and that unless I could find a third party source citing an investigation of the site, preferably in print and stored in the Library of Congress engraved on a platinum tablet suspended in an antigravity field with an unearthly light of goodness shining around it, the page would go with the "official" information by default, namely a babe count of 100. To this day, the Wikipedia entry on Luke's site spreads malformation on his babe count. Can you then understand my seething bitterness? I think you can.
 
@ deathkitty - I was quite obviously in my book asking for the personal opinions of people reading this forum; not just a link to some other forum index where the same or related issues are being discussed, without even a comment to accompany the link.

Per said:
I'm going to sum up my beef with Wikipedia by paraphrasing a true and real case.

Luke had a porn site which claimed, on the front page, to have 100 babes in it. However, you could easily count the babes and find that there were only 50. On Wikipedia's page on Luke's porn site the sidebar read, among other items: "Number of babes: 100". I posted on the talk page to say that the number of babes was evidently wrong. I was then told by an editor that my babe count constituted origenal resaerche and that unless I could find a third party source citing an investigation of the site, preferably in print and stored in the Library of Congress engraved on a platinum tablet suspended in an antigravity field with an unearthly light of goodness shining around it, the page would go with the "official" information by default, namely a babe count of 100. To this day, the Wikipedia entry on Luke's site spreads malformation on his babe count. Can you then understand my seething bitterness? I think you can.
Click to expand...

But that means more customers and money for me!

But really; I understand this point, and obviously agree that it is "wrong". Now, I'm not really arguing for Wikipedia (other than for it's right to exist, even though I tried to mention some pros), but to me, the main issue is that people who trust everything they read need to take responsibility for their own lives and stupidity. Like this:

There are websites that claim the Banana(h) as an entity disproving evolution. The Internet is full of stupid "information"; mankind is stupid. While I as said agree that false advertising or spreading of poor or false knowledge is 'wrong', I still think targeting Wikipedia specifically is missing the big picture. I'm not saying it's wrong to criticize Wikipedia, obviously; I'm just saying that I don't get why so many smart people are getting upset about dumb people actually trusting uncredible information. I mean, would you rather see Wikipedia get banned?

Wikipedia is a website, and people visiting that website have the responsibility to check its credentials themselves. A lot of people miss this. So do a lot of people that view the Bananah video on youtube. (On that matter, I regard Youtube sort of like Wikipedia, only youtube is with video and can be a lot more entertaining.)
 
Wait...so you're saying the banana doesn't disprove evolution?

YOU'RE GOING TO HELL FOR THAT BLASPHEMY, SON
 
Luke said:
I'm just saying that I don't get why so many smart people are getting upset about dumb people actually trusting uncredible information. I mean, would you rather see Wikipedia get banned?
Click to expand...
I stopped getting upset about [dumb] people trusting incredible information once I discovered how much fun it is to tell [dumb] people lies and actually have them believing it.

People want to be fooled. Desperately. That's why they pray to entities no one has ever seen or heard or felt. It's why they vote. And it's why they live their lives the way they are living them. Big deal. Brain tissue starts to decay after your twentieth birthday. If you didn't see the light before hitting twenty, you'll never see it. Not even if someone like me is yelling into your ears that there is no spoon and that there are no easy answers to complex questions. Let them figure it out for themselves in their highly anticipated afterlife. I'm sure Heaven is filled with libraries full of wisdom and truth and what have you. :roll:

As for Wikipedia: IMHO it ain't too bad. It's a nice place to visit if you need quick info on something interesting or something you don't know, but if I really need detailed info on a subject, I'm still a sucker for books, preferably written by someone who clearly knows what he's talking about.

Wikipedia does have a short and quite good page on foot fetishism, now that I come to think of it. :roll:
 
alec said:
I stopped getting upset about [dumb] people trusting incredible information once I discovered how much fun it is to tell [dumb] people lies and actually have them believing it.
Click to expand...

So you mean my college doesn't have a world champion Rocketball team?
 
Luke said:
@ deathkitty - I was quite obviously in my book asking for the personal opinions of people reading this forum; not just a link to some other forum index where the same or related issues are being discussed, without even a comment to accompany the link.
Click to expand...
yeah, but just about anything you can say has probly been covered there already.. that and im lazy:)
 
The thing to understand is where can wikipedia fail: at controversial topics, history topics, and historical and controversial topics. If you are searching for scientific material of the Exact Sciences, almost all the time the data that you find is reliable. Why? Because only ubergeeks edit that kind of stuff, and only ubergeeks correct it. Also, i happen to know a few university professors who edit wikipedia.

I like wikipedia a lot, and i use it a lot. The thing is, i never start searching wikipedia (or any other book or site) without bringing my brain along. If you know how to be critical of what you read, all is ok.
 
i think the main reason why people dirstrust wikipedia is because it is free. same with linux etc. especially in germany things that come free are worth nil. if i would give away ferraris people would complain about how much gas they use.

i myself trust wikipedia. i know the fervor of geeks on the internet when some is wrong. on the internet.
 
For me, the biggest problem with wikipedia is the way, the admins and mods sometimes acting. For approx two years I was really active on wikipedia, but after some stuff got deleted/ edited that was actualy true, I lost the interest in this. It has no sense to work together, if people who have not the slightest idea about the subject think, they know it better and edit and delet and so on.

I think it is also funny, that some of the admins and mods on wikipedia always preach to follow the rules. - But then on one article they strictly follow the rules and on the other they don't care.
 
As my history proffesor said. "you can use wikipedia as a place to look upp basic information if there is a subject that you know nothing about, but you will have to confirm that information with approved sources later. If you use wikipedia as a source I will fail your paper no matter how true it is." Nice for information, but I will never trust it.
 
The only problem with Wikipedia:

<Garf> Wikipedia! you go to look up a CSS term..
<Garf> and you end up reading about Spanish painters and astronaut micrometeorite protection
Click to expand...

I sometimes spend hours reading quite interesting but utterly useless stuff. I mean, you read about SQL and learn that "n the late 1970s, Relational Software, Inc. (now Oracle Corporation) saw the potential of the concepts described by Codd, Chamberlin, and Boyce and developed their own SQL-based RDBMS with aspirations of selling it to the U.S. Navy, CIA, and other government agencies." Then, of course, "n the famous "smoking gun" recording that led to President Nixon's resignation, Nixon ordered his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, to tell the CIA that further investigation of Watergate would "open the whole can of worms" about the Bay of Pigs of Cuba, and, therefore, that the CIA should tell the FBI to cease investigating the Watergate burglary, due to reasons of "national security"." You also have to keep in mind that "the English translation of cochinos as "pigs" might be erroneous, as in all probability here it refers to a species of triggerfish (Balistes vetula)[1], rather than pigs (Sus scrofa)." Now, triggerfish "can erect the first two dorsal spines: the first one locks and the second one unlocks. This prevents predators from swallowing them or pulling them out of their holes." Good thing that the "camouflage of the dead leaf mantis makes it less visible to both its predators and prey."
 
i like wikipedia and find it better then other solutions just because its open and has a lot of people editing it

even better in some cases then Googles offering: Knol
Which is also very very cool and offers what wikipedia can't: established authors and more ind-depth articles

http://knol.google.com/k#

wikipedia is not good as a serious reference obviously but other than that its one of the first places i go for info on something i dont know

also the huge built up ammount of data helps.
 
i have come to believe that wikipedia is like the world of planescape. i.e. if something's not on wikipedia, it doesn't really exist.
 
alec said:
Brain tissue starts to decay after your twentieth birthday.
Click to expand...

23rd?

Anyway, as for Wikipedia
whyso.jpg


Wikipedia will always be shunned by academics and will never reach the status of a real encyclopaedia, because its basic system just fails to reach academic requirements. And there's good reason for those requirements.

And guess what: that's fine. Just let it be irregular, fun and big. Instead, they've got a bunch of nutjob moderators who think Wikipedia is the real deal.

I remember several webcomics protesting to the removal of webcomics by moderators, as Wikipedia does not consider single webcomics as serious topic.
whyso.jpg


We're talking about an infinitely big encyclopaedia here. Since there's no limit to its volume, you'd figure it'd have no problem providing info on whatever people want to read. Then why are people slashing into this info?

Of course, if you start taking yourself so seriously, you'd have to start coming up for reasons why the summary of a random South Park episode is as long if not longer as the biography of one of Russia's most important philosophers.
whyso.jpg


So just accept it, role over and admit that you're just another time waster, a way for people to waste useless hours of their life on the internet. That's all Wikipedia is, no more, no less.
 
My main problem with Wikipedia is that it follows the "if enough people say it, it's true" line of thinking.

And it's easily broken. Steven Colbert broke the elephant page quite easily.
 
Luke said:
But really; I understand this point, and obviously agree that it is "wrong". Now, I'm not really arguing for Wikipedia (other than for it's right to exist, even though I tried to mention some pros), but to me, the main issue is that people who trust everything they read need to take responsibility for their own lives and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should be arguing "for" Wikipedia? The "only idiots are fooled" argument is effective against people who argue that Wikipedia is doing active harm. It is less effective against the idea that Wikipedia is a missed opportunity. It's less a matter of "we wouldn't be better off if it didn't exist" than "we have this big thing, why shouldn't it be better?"
 
I think wikipedia is a good hub for information and many of its articles contain more validity than your major news channels' biased programs.

The trick is to not trust the information directly from wikipedia. Follow the references and deduct whether a certain reference is reliable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top