I see nothing except references to Wikipedia in this section ALL the time. But what I want to know is, how accurate is it? Who verifies / updates the information? Because I have to be honest, I have checked a few things that were very wrong or have not been updated in a long time.
I think that they only check for inappropriate content, rather than correct content.
You should see the fall out boy page, people keep on changing it with gay pics. Cougar told me about it.liquidat0r wrote:
I think that they only check for inappropriate content, rather than correct content.
So why does everyone on here use it as fact to support an argument?liquidat0r wrote:
I think that they only check for inappropriate content, rather than correct content.
I only use wikipedia for this forum, if then. you're right, a lot of the shit is inaccurate and really outdated. If i tried using wikipedia in school, my work would get marked down.usmarine2007 wrote:
I see nothing except references to Wikipedia in this section ALL the time. But what I want to know is, how accurate is it? Who verifies / updates the information? Because I have to be honest, I have checked a few things that were very wrong or have not been updated in a long time.
It's as accurate as people want it to be. People write articles, others check it, and change things. I believe articles that might be largely subject to opinions, are proof read before they are actually visible on the web.
EDIT: The point of Wikipedia, as the owner himself says, is to try to inform people more about things, and to give them a general better understanding of it. It's not meant for research papers etc. It's accurate to a point. If you want to get a general understanding of something, it's a good place to look, as it generally has a lot of information all in the same place. They do have a bibliography at the bottom of each page though, if you want to get the information from another source. That said, it's the internet, and any idiot can put information up.
EDIT: The point of Wikipedia, as the owner himself says, is to try to inform people more about things, and to give them a general better understanding of it. It's not meant for research papers etc. It's accurate to a point. If you want to get a general understanding of something, it's a good place to look, as it generally has a lot of information all in the same place. They do have a bibliography at the bottom of each page though, if you want to get the information from another source. That said, it's the internet, and any idiot can put information up.
Last edited by ghettoperson (2006-12-02 09:11:59)
Univeritys in England always stress that getting information off Wiki is the worst possible thing you can do. But WTF do they know.........!!!
Wikipedia isnt credible in my opinion. Its open for anyone to add information to it, thus the information sometimes being what people think, rather than what they know. I just refrain from using it.
if anything i use wikipedia to get me started on my research and guide me to other sources and keywords.
Exactly, it gives you a good basis about the subject, but it shouldn't be taken as 100% correct. That's not to say that some articles aren't right, because I'm sure a lot of them are. But you have to realise that it's all written by some random internets person that in all probability has no qualifications in the subject that they are writing about.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
if anything i use wikipedia to get me started on my research and guide me to other sources and keywords.
Everything is always disputable. Wikipedia is cited generally because it is used by a great many people who all have the ability to add to it. Anything inaccurate can be challenged.
As can be seen here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anti-Semitism
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_anti-Semitism
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia … l_violence
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Have you guys ever seen the ban list?..lol
As can be seen here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anti-Semitism
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_anti-Semitism
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia … l_violence
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Have you guys ever seen the ban list?..lol
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-02 09:42:13)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yeah my University (Newcastle) would mark me down for using Wiki, so it cant be that accurate.buLLet_t00th wrote:
Univeritys in England always stress that getting information off Wiki is the worst possible thing you can do. But WTF do they know.........!!!
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
What I usually do is ignore Wiki and then after I've learnt about a subject and then taken the exam or coursework, I look it up and laugh at how wrong people are!KILLSWITCH wrote:
Yeah my University (Newcastle) would mark me down for using Wiki, so it cant be that accurate.buLLet_t00th wrote:
Univeritys in England always stress that getting information off Wiki is the worst possible thing you can do. But WTF do they know.........!!!
Last edited by buLLet_t00th (2006-12-02 09:21:44)
i pretty much use wiki as an extended dictionary. if i want to know something exactly, i'll google it properly
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
Here allow Phil Hendrie to explain..
http://our2142.com/wik/
http://our2142.com/wik/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I believe when it comes to things related to entertainment and generally things where it's usually an opinion, it's false. But when it comes to displaying simple scientific facts and information it's correct. Basically things that can have only one answer, like i dunno......scientific stuff.
I never knew it existed until I came to these forums. Its interesting how many people use it to increase their Epenis by cutting and pasting from it and then calling it their own comment or not informing anyone that the information hasn't come from their brain but from Wiki.
It's accurate for topics that are less controversial. You'll notice that a lot of pages are locked so that only a small group of people can edit them. For example, the page for Bill Clinton is locked because people have vandalized it in the past, so only certain people can add or remove things from it. The same is true of George W. Bush's page. However, in saying that, one could argue that these controversial pages become more accurate, when the small group of people are able to correct these pages. Wikipedia has some truly neutral scholars that edit it when a page has been defaced with incorrect material or jokes. Once they are finished with the page, it usually is pretty accurate.
Nevertheless, yes, I could not use wikipedia when I wrote my college thesis, and for good reason. For the purposes of an online forum debate, however, it's usually accurate enough.
Nevertheless, yes, I could not use wikipedia when I wrote my college thesis, and for good reason. For the purposes of an online forum debate, however, it's usually accurate enough.
For example, you want to know about the tsunami that killed over 200k people. Or you want to know the time, date and death toll of the atomic bombings of Japan. Or maybe something about Chinese history.Turquoise wrote:
It's accurate for topics that are less controversial.
The wiki is great for all those things, and if you need a quick fact to link a post to, the wiki will do. But no one in their right mind would cite the wikipedia in a thesis, or use it as a scientific source.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
When I use wikipedia, I usually use to to help put other stuff into context, or find new materials.
Depends on the subject. If its something that is common place and not hugely focused and scientific it may be changed alot by people with no knowledge, however there are lots of posts on there that are very accurate. My uni doesnt like you using it but they wont mark you down aslong as you support any quotations.KILLSWITCH wrote:
Yeah my University (Newcastle) would mark me down for using Wiki, so it cant be that accurate.buLLet_t00th wrote:
Univeritys in England always stress that getting information off Wiki is the worst possible thing you can do. But WTF do they know.........!!!
The wikipedia mods are doing alot to keep wikipedia as credible as possible. If a wikipedia memeber sees something incorrect they can remove it themselves or ask a moderator to do so. The mods can also lock entries on certain levels, the highest only lets the mods themselves do editing (oddly most of these are Stephen Colbert related). Wikipedia is not a good source for research papaers but it is good for referancing on the internets because of the way it's designed with links to related pages and extior information.