Why is Wikipedia not considered a good source here?

2007-05-09 13:20:49

#1

Cougar: Banned; +1,962|6771|Dallas

I don't understand this. Out of all the other online resources, this site, IMHO, site sources way better than anyone else. There are like source nazi's over there.

Not enough sources? Deleted.

Almost enough sources? Deleted.

Enough sources? Deleted.

So many sources you no longer care about sources and are tired of downloading all the text? Warning.

I see people saying "Ohh I know, wiki as a reference.." or "you're citing wiki? GTFO" and I don't get it. Show me another, free, online encyclopedia that cites half the stuff wiki does. For example, look at the sources on these articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2_deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defecation (come on, a site about taking a shit references Gray's Anatomy. What more do you want?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

I mean these are just random articles I thought up off the top of my head. Look at all the references and citations. Over 70 alone on Palestine, 40 on black holes, 40 on WWII deaths, even a reference on how to take a shit.

So whats the beef with wiki?

2007-05-09 13:22:19

#2

stef10: Member; +173|6488|Denmark

I like wiki a lot, but the problem is that too many can write a big load of shit. You do not need to a professor to talk about heavy science and so on. Atleast I do not think so.

2007-05-09 13:23:56

#3

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6529|...

Because for light topics its a way to get quick information, I think most people know here it is prone to inaccuracy.

2007-05-09 13:24:51

#4

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6778|PNW

Wikipedia is easily subject to user error and vandalism. Therefore, it is better to review material from an article's sources before taking its word for it.

It is also used by people who don't know what they're talking about to pretend that they do. If half the people here were asked, without the benefit of their computer, to discuss the subject matter of one of their wikipedia links, they'd probably just gaze at you blankly.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-09 13:26:29)

2007-05-09 13:25:28

#5

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|6772|UK

stef10 wrote:
I like wiki a lot, but the problem is that too many can write a big load of shit. You do not need to a professor to talk about heavy science and so on. Atleast I do not think so.

Wrong, any shit that gets written up there is removed quick time. Wiki is one of the best online sources out there.

End of debate.

2007-05-09 13:25:42

#6

OrangeHound: Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...; +1,335|6656|Washington DC

Cougar wrote:
So whats the beef with wiki?

I like wiki, but one needs to understand that ANYONE can make an edit to the contents you are viewing. So, the information might have been accurate 5 minutes ago, but not right now or tomorrow.

It is only as accurate as the last person who edited the contents ... and that could just as easily be a 10-year old kid or a psycho, than an actual expert on the subject matter.

2007-05-09 13:25:46

#7

Yaocelotl: :D; +221|6656|Keyboard

In the beginning wiki wasn't a good choice for reference, but nowadays things have changed because people that know how to search and are savvy in whatsoever topic are always watching to the content of it. I think that people have a grudge with wiki because of the "yeah man, you got it from the internets, serious business" trend.

2007-05-09 13:26:46

#8

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6296|Éire

I think don't think there are many thorough regulations on who can contribute to the material on wikipedia. I reference it a lot but where possible I'll try to back it up with an alternate source.

2007-05-09 13:27:16

#9

OrangeHound: Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...; +1,335|6656|Washington DC

Vilham wrote:
stef10 wrote:
I like wiki a lot, but the problem is that too many can write a big load of shit. You do not need to a professor to talk about heavy science and so on. Atleast I do not think so.
Wrong, any shit that gets written up there is removed quick time. Wiki is one of the best online sources out there.

End of debate.

Only true on the more popular topics ... you can edit an obscure topic with information and it might be there for days.

2007-05-09 13:28:01

#10

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6556|CH/BR - in UK

stef10 wrote:
I like wiki a lot, but the problem is that too many can write a big load of shit. You do not need to a professor to talk about heavy science and so on. Atleast I do not think so.

Not anymore - you have to be active for some time now - around 3-4 months, I think. Last time I tried to edit something to elaborate on it, I found that out.

-konfusion

2007-05-09 13:28:43

#11

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6562

It's of comparable accuracy to most of the big name encyclopaedias and vandalism is generally cleared up pretty quickly. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia except for when the 'Disputed' warning comes up: I don't how they treat content in those cases. On the whole Wiki is a great starting point for an investigation.

2007-05-09 13:29:53

#12

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|6772|UK

OrangeHound wrote:
Vilham wrote:
stef10 wrote:
I like wiki a lot, but the problem is that too many can write a big load of shit. You do not need to a professor to talk about heavy science and so on. Atleast I do not think so.
Wrong, any shit that gets written up there is removed quick time. Wiki is one of the best online sources out there.

End of debate.
Only true on the more popular topics ... you can edit an obscure topic with information and it might be there for days.

True. Still better than elsewhere and who edits obscure topics anyway?

2007-05-09 13:31:59

#13

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6638|949

Wiki is good for gaining quick, less comprehensible knowledge. The fact that it cites its sources is excellent, because instead of using Wikipedia as a source you can use it to find sources.

2007-05-09 13:35:59

#14

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6607|132 and Bush

Never understood it neither. People have a problem because it is the most democratic online encyclopedia. I guess those are the people who like to be spoon fed from a single source rather than a broad consensus. If something is disputed or up for debate it will tell you right at the top of the article.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-05-09 13:39:08

#15

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6655

Nah, I'm with you on that Cougar. It sounds suspect, but the people that work on it are fucking powertripping nutcases who contest anything that doesn't have about 6 sources. I just read recently that Wikipedia has 4 errors per page on average, which is only one more than Encyclopaedia Britannica. Britannica has a hell of a lot less articles as well.

2007-05-09 13:41:28

#16

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6816|Nårvei

The biggest mistake you can do is to rely on one source alone, wiki is great for getting relevant information quick and easy but to refer to a second source is even better.

I use wiki a lot as reference to other material, could be information about a topic i`m interested in or tidbits about a country i`m going to visit, learn to filter information and crosscheck your sources and you are well on your way to true knowledge

To flame people for using wiki as a source just shows your own lack of knowledge.

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-09 13:48:34

#17

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6764|Argentina

I agree. Some folks flame people for using wiki as a source. I don't remember any case, though.

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
ATG wrote:

There is a cause and effect SanIaya.

Where are the reports of random acts of senseless violence with large numbers of civilian casualties that Israel is responsible for ( the OT excluded ).
This happened over two captured soldiers.

2006 Lebanon war: The conflict killed over a thousand people, most of whom were Lebanese, severely damaged Lebanese infrastructure, displaced 974,184 Lebanese, and 300,000-500,000 Israelis, and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and northern Israel. Even after the ceasefire, much of Southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to unexploded cluster bombs. As of 1 December 2006, an estimated 200,000 Lebanese remained internally displaced or refugees.
I don't know how things usually go in this forum, but posting a Wikipedia article isn't in your best interest if you want to be taken seriously.

2007-05-09 13:56:11

#18

agent146: Member; +127|6393|Jesus Land aka Canada

as my teacher said despite wiki is fun and cool to read BUT its not a "scholarly" citation.

Last edited by agent146 (2007-05-09 13:56:26)

2007-05-09 13:58:53

#19

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6638|949

agent146 wrote:
as my teacher said despite wiki is fun and cool to read BUT its not a "scholarly" citation.

No, but they cite scholarly sources. Which is why it is good. You can go to the library and find the articles/books Wiki cites, then form your own conclusion.

2007-05-09 14:02:29

#20

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|6637|Washington, DC

Wiki kicks ass. I wish my school wasn't so uptight about it, it's a way better read than Britannica.

2007-05-09 14:06:48

#21

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6816|Nårvei

Hurricane wrote:
Wiki kicks ass. I wish my school wasn't so uptight about it, it's a way better read than Britannica.

Everything is a better read than Britannica, don`t know how many hours i`ve spend diving into those books but it`s quite a few *sigh*

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-09 14:08:35

#22

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6548|Texas - Bigger than France

Haven't you figure it out yet. If it's on the internets, it's true.

2007-05-09 14:10:35

#23

spuddy1981: Member; +10|6369|england

Its ace in principle. But for anything important its best to double check from a reliable source. I know at uni they done mind us using the internet for information but it has to be backed up with book research.

2007-05-09 14:10:51

#24

Aegis: Sailor with no BF2 Navy; +19|6751|I'm worldwide, beotch

Cougar wrote:
So whats the beef with wiki?

consensus over credentials.

2007-05-09 14:11:40

#25

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6768

If you use Wiki as your one source, you fail. If you use a second source to verify it, why use Wiki in the first place?

BF2S Forums Why is Wikipedia not considered a good source here?

stef10 wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Vilham wrote:

stef10 wrote:

stef10 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Vilham wrote:

stef10 wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

ATG wrote:

agent146 wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Board footer