Posted on 05/30/2016 9:31:37 PM PDT by OddLane
Perhaps the greatest part of living in the current year is the access our civilization has to a virtually limitless supply of information. Although many refuse to take advantage of it, the fact is that we are living during an era which is unprecedented for acquiring and transmitting knowledge at light speed, which I-as someone who narrowly missed out on being a millennial-can appreciate. From the Khan Academy, to more structured online universities, to Web tutorials on how to construct 3D models, there is no domain of expertise concealed from anyone with a reliable Internet connection and a morsel of curiosity. However, the most revolutionary Web portal when it comes to collating and archiving the collective knowledge of humanity in an encyclopedic way is, without question, the website known as Wikipedia.
Founded by former options trader Jimmy Wales and philosopher David Sanger at the turn of the century, Wikipedia is still-despite my deep misgivings, which I’ll explore at length in this essay-an extraordinarily useful resource. Unfortunately, it is also a website which, like the others I’ve tackled in the past week, is administered by a group of individuals with intensely hidebound ideologies...
(Excerpt) Read more at american-rattlesnake.org ...
I don’t use Wikipedia, have blocked its URL on our networks, and have told everyone working for me that they will be fired if they ever use it for work, internally or with our clients.
May I ask why?
Can I ask what your company does, in general?
That’s stupid. It’s very useful for certain types of information.
Uhh ... Sounds a little — well, a lot — reactionary on your part. Wikipedia can be extremely helpful and entertaining, and it isn’t difficult to confirm something that might be questionable. Vacation time, maybe? :)
I use it pretty much to only look up biographies of movie stars and musicians, as I am a musician myself. I never use it to look up hard-science and educational facts.
BFL
Perhaps the greatest part of living in the current year is the access our civilization has to a virtually limitless supply of information.
And for all of our access to information and accumulated knowledge, there is a lack of common sense or wisdom, if you will, among so many people.
What type? Biased? Sorry, we don’t use it at work, at home, nor do we allow our kids to use it. There are plenty of other sites to research on the Internets without having to resort to Wikipedia.
It’s a fantastic source for most topics. It falls short when dealing with politics, etc that have rabid ideological followers.
Why? Well, it’s an FR tradition that someone must immediately let you know they will never own a cellphone of any type... Or that they will never eat Mac and Cheese that isn’t made with the finest of cheeses and prepared according to a revolutionary war recipe... or that their children will never see a television.
Preening that you will fire anyone who uses Wikipedia also shows how superior they are to you.
Watch the threads, you’ll notice it.
Come on. If you are watching a show (fiction or news) and someone comes on whom you want to know about, the basic stuff is on Wikipedia. I wouldn’t look up political entries, but I might look up to find out who Mr. So and so is, or which movies actress X was in. There are a lot of neutral things that Wikipedia helps with.
Also, after a famous person dies, you can look ASAP to see if you can catch their death unreported yet. Which you can’t.
Wikipedia is a good first source to get a general idea of what to research. If the topic is not political, its accuracy is actually pretty high. Even if it is inaccurate, because of politics, it’s still a pretty good site for a first reference.
There is no better place for looking up facts. Between Wiki and Youtube, you can learn just about everything.
I use Wikipedia extensively for professional purposes. If a new virus pops up that I need to know about, the CDC and the WHO are decent sources, but Wikipedia is more likely to have the information I need, right at hand: the kind of virus it is, how it replicates, how it spreads, whether there is a vaccine for it or a vaccine is being developed, etc. Plus, Wikipedia has references: invaluable if I am preparing a manuscript. True, I could find every bit of information without Wikipedia—but why waste the hours when Wikipedia’s contributors have already done the legwork?
The only areas where Wikipedia really shows a bias are in politics or sociology. If you recognize the bias in those areas, you often can still get good information.
With that said, it is a tool, and has to be used properly and in full context. You don't use a screwdriver to pound nails!
No most of the content is factual actually. Especially math and science articles.
Wikipedia is a world treasure beyond compare.
Just do not cast any doubt on Climate Change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.