Skip to comments.
Not As Wiki As It Used To Be
BBC ^
| 8/25/06
Posted on 08/31/2006 6:05:48 AM PDT by steve-b
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
To: ClearCase_guy; steve-b
Agree 100%.
It depends on the subject. Some things which are less controversial than others are generally more accurate than say an article about Condi Rice would be.
21
posted on
08/31/2006 8:15:42 AM PDT
by
MikefromOhio
(aka MikeinIraq - Go Bucks!!!)
To: MikefromOhio
Some things which are less controversial than others are generally more accurate than say an article about Condi Rice would be. Agreed. I use Wikipedia for subjects that do not involve any emotion. People are unlikely to lie about programming languages or obscure tv shows from the 70s or stuff like that. I never assume that wikipedia is correct, but occasionally use it as a starting point.
To: Kaylee Frye
I had to write a short paper on something in my Western Civ class. I can't remember what it was right off of the top of my head, but Wikipedia had more detailed info on it than my textbook did.
I hadn't bought the stupid flyer booklet yet that the professor put together for the class, so I went almost exclusively from Wikipedia.
I got an A too :). This guy never gives A's either.
It was accurate there at least.
23
posted on
08/31/2006 9:28:05 AM PDT
by
MikefromOhio
(aka MikeinIraq - Go Bucks!!!)
To: DoctorMichael
If you see it on the internet, it MUST be true.......................... I'd put Wikipedia's batting average up against CBS, the Boston Globe or the New York Times, any day of the week ending in a "y".
Also, Wikipedia is self correcting, for the most part. I find a good test for any encyclopedia is the Sacco and Vanzetti case. I personally am convinced that they were justly convicted after a fair trial. I find Wikipedia's treatment far more evenhanded than the dead tree Britannica, or any other dead tree encyclopedia I've ever consulted.
24
posted on
08/31/2006 9:45:06 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
25
posted on
08/31/2006 10:16:44 AM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(A wall first. A wall now.)
To: 12B
>>I find it very useful and they generally do a good job of staying neutral.
You're kidding, right?
26
posted on
08/31/2006 10:18:31 AM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
To: FreedomPoster; 12B
I find them far more even handed than most of the MSM, and certainly miles ahead of academia.
27
posted on
08/31/2006 10:29:10 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: Kaylee Frye
I use Wikipedia for subjects that do not involve any emotion. If you cannot get emotional about Bayes Theorem better put a mirror to your nose. A truly wonderful treatment.
28
posted on
08/31/2006 10:33:09 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
You set an extremely low bar.
Wiki content needs to be seriously questioned on any subject that is remotely political.
29
posted on
08/31/2006 10:36:29 AM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Uggh, now my brain hurts. :)
To: FreedomPoster
Wiki content needs to be seriously questioned on any subject that is remotely political True, which is why I rarely turn to them. I gotta give them major props for their treatment of Sacco and Vanzetti, however. They give "both sides"; they did a far better job than the History Channel, for instance.
31
posted on
08/31/2006 10:39:06 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: Kaylee Frye
Actually, I needed to "solve" a problem for work. I researched textbooks, googled, Eric Weisstein, etc., but that Wikipedia artical came through for me.
"Solve" in quotes, because I actually had to unravel a somewhat botched analysis - the author, a Ph.D. physicist, could not explain his assumptions, he had relied on his own infallible intuition - and that article (and second edition Papoulis) provided me the key insights. Turns out, his intuition was plain wrong, but gave unfortunately plausible results.
They'll always be a tender spot in my heart for Wikipedia.
32
posted on
08/31/2006 10:47:49 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: Marius3188
33
posted on
08/31/2006 10:49:57 AM PDT
by
July 4th
(A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
To: ShadowDancer
LOL - I actually went to
Weeki Wachee to see the mermaids when I was a kid. My grandpa knew the manager and got us in free ;-).
To: steve-b
Wikipedia = Web 2.0 garbage.
35
posted on
08/31/2006 2:32:31 PM PDT
by
CyberCowboy777
(You may remember me from such threads as "Christmas in Cambodia" & "Crying Game: The Gore Story")
To: ShadowAce
I increasingly find worthwhile Wiki entries returned in Google searches for technical subjects.
36
posted on
08/31/2006 10:38:08 PM PDT
by
KayEyeDoubleDee
(const Tag &referenceToConstTag)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson