Posted on 09/16/2010 7:35:27 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
It can be a tough thing with Wikipedia. Most of the time, it seems the information provided by the site is up-to-date and spot on. But given the way Wikipedia posts are created, by anyone and everyone, it seems a tad risky to rely on entries as the truth, the whole truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
But it ought to be clear: NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER rely on Wikipedia as the ultimate resource of ANYTHING.
Always attribute WIKIPEDIA information with the "caveat emptor" disclaimer.
Frankly, you can subscribe to Britannica online for $70 a year, and get sourced materials. They supposedly update their info every two weeks.
If I am searching for "must need" info, I look at wikipedia, but if it is CRUCIAL information, I always try to VERIFY.
It’s a good place to start. Definitely not the place to stop.
Did WSJ defend Rush Limabaugh when Wikiquotes had false racist “Rush Limbaugh quotes” posted that cost him his opportunity to bid on an NFL franchise?
This is particularly the case with any subject that is the slightest bit controversial, especially anything political.
Good point...
When that happen it can be more of an entertainment site than an information site.
Do you trust the Obama voters who write the Encyclopedia Britannica or Pinch Sulzberger’s krewe at The New York Times? Citations? Probably citations to other Comminist writers.
Look at this editorial board!
http://corporate.britannica.com/board/
Don’t trust anything a Marxist writes.
“...NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER rely on Wikipedia as the ultimate resource of ANYTHING....”
Wiki is a great place to look up lists of such things as Super Bowl winners, spaceflights, tv shows, etc.. Not so great for hot-button issues such as politics, religion, abortion, and Rush Limbaugh.
I’ll remember from now on.
So Rush is right only 99.5% of the time?
I went in to my high school’s page and posted a story about one of the long time faculty being arrested for forcible sodomy that was there for months. In that case, it wasn't necessarily false, I just didn't know for a fact that it did happen.
Rush probably knows the facts. He just likes to get the ire of the left and this kind of story would definitely do that.
When I was writing my history thesis, I found that wikipedia was a great place to begin a search on a topic. Most of the history I looked for was written by people who had written books on the topics and they would add where they found their primary and secondary sources. Most of the people adding their sources were either history professors or someone working for them. Those links were invaluable to me as a way to find other research.
Wikipedia is a great place for quick information
B.S.
As you stated, Wikipedia should never be relied upon as authority for anything. It is an entertainment site.
Any idiot can post anything about any subject. The "moderators" are mostly far left wing unemployed hacks who live in their mother's basements and therefore have plenty of time to work their way up the Wikipedia hierarchy.
The best way to read Wikipedia on a subject is to google it first. Read all the other links first. Read Wikipedia last. If there's anything obviously different, assume Wikipedia is wrong.
FYI, it was Missouri. Raytown is a suburb of Kansas City.
Wikipedia is PLENTY reliable. It is the brains of users that can tend to be unreliable.
When you see a statement, you first check to see if it is sourced with a footnote. Then you have to follow through on that footnote and trace the source. If the source has an article, judge the credibility of the article then read it. If there is nothing in the article related to the Wikipedia entry, you throw out the information in your mind the same way you would throw out hearsay as a juror in a trial.
If you click the footnote and it goes to a dead or moved article, you of course do the same, throw out the info as invalid.
I get tired of hearing how ppl think Wikipedia is unreliable when they are lazy or ignorant of the way Wikipedia was designed to work. It was never meant to be a “no-effort” Encyclopedia, the users have to do some work.
The way it summarize sourced information (for the most part) is brilliant. It is just that the user is responsible for verifying the source and info....aka PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in learning.
You make a good point, jackmercer. Obviously a sourced piece of material is to be judged by the source cited.
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.