Posted on 07/09/2008 12:08:24 PM PDT by abran770
Grilled cheese, World War II and fiduciary have one thing in common: if you “Google” them, each prompts a Wikipedia entry as the No. 1 result.
Wikipedia is all too convenient, but of what value is it? What good is a stockpile of information if it’s unreliable and often incorrect, as many have said Wikipedia is?
Since its launch in 2001, the “The Free Encyclopedia” has grown exponentially, offering a definition (or more) for almost every topic. Last spring the resource reached the 10 million article mark over a spectrum of 20 different languages in its attempt to “summarize all human knowledge.”
Yet controversy over the site mounts daily: schools encourage students to abstain from the resource -- if they don’t ban it altogether. Others criticize its ability to be supplemented, edited and updated by anyone -- regardless of knowledge or credentials. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) recently mentioned Wikipedia specifically as part of its explanation for lower-than-usual grades among local students.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
For the most part, the information on Wikipedia is worth exactly what you pay for it.
Sounds like we need a big government program to fix this. The Dems will propose that we raise taxes on the rich to pay for the Dept of Education to monitor wikipedia. The Republicans will create a new cabinet level department, staff it with big dollar corporate donors and borrow money from China to fund it all.
I do a lot of writing and Wikipedia has been a boon to me.
Leni
The key, of course is "proper guidelines". This requires that Wikipedia editors actually act as unbiased referees in the case of conflicting information. Unfortunately, this is where Wikipedia fails. All too many of their editors use their power to enforce their personal biases and agendas on the system. (There was an excellent article posted yesterday about a Global Warming jihadist editor who routinely violates Wikipedia standards in his quest to purge and censor dissent, and is not punished by the other editors.)
Paid sources aren’t necessarily worth much more.
On the whole, Wikipedia is a marvelous source full of detailed accurate material on pretty much any subject you can imagine. Sure, it’s subject to abuse re: controversial and perverse subjects, but that amounts to remarkably little overall.
Having an article written for free by someone who deeply understand and is passionate about a subject may very well be considerably more valuable than some obligatory screed from someone who knows little of the same subject.
No research source will be perfect. It’s just a matter of trading off one flaw for another; better to be aware that independent verification is warranted, than to blindly trust a source - regardless of whether the source is “free” or not.
I’ve never had much problem with Wikipedia. Its good for quick overviews, fact searches (names, dates, etc.), and generic information. It shouldn’t be used as a single source for anything. Some of the good articles are usually pretty well documented.
But, generally, you should always double-check important information. For quick searches, trivial information (like information for posts here), etc ... Wiki is a fine resource.
H
Wiki certainly has its place, but on anything serious, it’s good to check other sources.
Its main use is as a cursory introduction to a topic - I would never use wikipedia as a sole source for any "fact."
I wouldn’t use a Wikipedia entry to help me diffuse a bomb or replace my brakes. But when I want to know tons about an old TV series, I’m there. It is understood going in that much of the content is OPINION, not sworn testamony. I think free is a pretty good price.
What was the name of that battle between Byzantium and the Normans where Robert Guiscard lost and what year was it?
Wiki is probably correct, has the name of the battle, the year, and possibly some information you hadn't read about the battle before. I just wouldn't RELY upon it for any new information without checking the sources.
Obviously we need to assign the upkeep of Wikipedia to the staffs of Democrat Congress-scum and other liberals...... oh, wait, that’s pretty much the situation already!
Yes. That's it. Wikipedia is to blame.
Not the modern PC enviropropogandafest that concentrates on teacher job security, "social-consciousness" and student self-confidence rather than educational excellence.
Wikipedia.
It is handy. Usually if there is an ideological point
of contention involved, that is the place to suspect Wiki.
For basic information I have not found them inaccurate.
It's not a bad starting point.
Anything that can be spun Left, usually is.
For pop culture, old stuff the Left has forgotten about or doesn't care about anymore- it's not bad.
But, as I always tell people when they peruse my stuff, "Use All The Links, Dammit!"
If you do that, it's OK as a start.
For an example of "bad Wiki?"
Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet [wants Congress members to get permission before internet postings] (Chicago Boys July 8, 2008)
[teacher_mode]
All sources must be cited and footnoted. Any paper submitted in this class that uses wikipedia as a source receives a grade of zero (0).
[/teacher_mode]
Peet, bitter and clinging...etc.
“I’ve never seen a lot of glaring errors”
And how do you know that? Through osmosis?
Please MinuteGal. Tell me you did not say that. I have too much respect for you.
My best regards.
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.