wikipedia

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Then make it more reliable by adding your own expertise to it.

That's the problem any kid can add their uneducated and uninformed opinion and pass it off as expertise.

[LDiCesare]

I think it's an interesting place to look for links but not accurate anough to believe any article in it. I know people who tend to have faith in it and came to very wrong conclusions based on a wrong article here and there. I think that maybe 8 articles out of 10 are good, but since you have no way to know if you're reading one of the good articles or a poor one, it's not to be trusted.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Locutus
There are maybe a handful of (mainstream) topics for which the coverage can be described as 'excellent', it really depends on the individuals making the contribution and the ability of the rest of the users to keep their filthy little fingers off those contributions. But this happens only very rarely in my experience. Plus, even if the explanantion is excellent in quality, it still doesn't really mean anything if it's not from any kind of credible source, which wikipedia by definition isn't because anyone could've written any of it.

Again, the only truely credible part of wikipedia is the links it provides, because those can be judged in their own right and can sometimes be both credible and relevant (keyword: sometimes). But even then you have no way of knowing if all relevant sources have been listed, it's still possible to create a bias by excluding certain sources from your list of references.

So all-in-all anyone looking for serious and credible information would be wise to avoid Wikipedia. There are many knowledge bases online, both generic and specific, that provide much more credible information of typically much better quality on the same topics that Wikipedia does. Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia and even MSN Encarta are all fine examples of generic online encyclopedias that are overall much better and certainly much more credible than Wikipedia.

are those other sites free? I don't like paying things on the internet.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Then make it more reliable by adding your own expertise to it.

I don't have any expertise.

actually I was thinking about adding something here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%F6ntgen_equivalent_man

as it says this article is a stub. But it's been too long since I worked in the field, I may get something wrong.

believe it or not, I know alot about alot of subjects, I just don't have any confidence in myself. And my writing ability sucks anyways.

[DaShi]

It won't replace google, eh UR?

[axi]

Hello paiktis, have you ever checked out the Greek wikipedia?

http://el.wikipedia.org

I sometimes write a couple of things there. If you find that the english wikipedia is not good enough, then how about this one? Do you think it's hopeless?

IMO it's not, even though we're ages behind the slovenians, the bulgarians the hungarians e.t.c. (it's a pity, really; the hellenic language deserves something better). I beleive that it's virtually impossible for wikipedia to stop growing, so eventually all major language pedias will come to full growth. And we want to be part of that, don't we?

Alas, our fellow countrymen don't seem to have any other use for the internet, apart from playing games, downloading music and porn and gambling.

[ixnay]

I use Wikipedia very, very frequently to check on small facts and use it as a starting point to find more info on a particular subject.

I'd never use it for serious research or citing in a paper, though.

I have found that more often than not, Wikipedia answers any questions I might have about a particular subject.

[mrmitchell]

It is a great starting point, or great for something that's not serious, because of its huge depth. Everyone who knows anything that isn't already posted can add their part.

There really shouldn't be any reason to doubt nonpolitical statistics and other things that you can't make an opinion of, for example, facts like the Republic of Iraq encompasses the ancient region of Mesopotamia, or Margaret Thatcher served as prime minister of the UK from 1979 to 1990.

For advanced dissections of the topics, and things that are easy to have a non neutral point of view on, I wouldn't trust it any more than when a used car salesman's lips are moving.

However, as it is a living creature, in the future it will probably continue to grow more credible and reliable.

[Dis]

just for the sake of argument, lets discuss one particular entry. Many of you claim how inaccurate the site is, so I want you to discuss the inaccuracies with this particular article.

I'm choosing this article in particular because there have already been some claims made about the articles within (in a thread a few months ago). It has to deal with the proxy war mentioned. Many dispute the idea of a proxy war.

So let's discuss this one article and see how innaccurate it really is. the article is: The vietnam war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

Point out everything wrong or omitted in the above article.

[Bereta_Eder]

axi, thanks for the link, I didn't know it existed. looks a bit underdevelloped and the syntax in one entry I read is a little poor but sure, it's a good effort. it certaintly will be more useful than the english one since I don't think Domi or any other big greek encyclopedia wants to offer its services free on the web.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Did Stew write that article.

For some reason I had their article on Jim Davidson describing him as a 'deeply unfunny c**t'. That's good enough proof of their accuracy for me

[Dis]

since no one can find any inaccuracies in the link I posted above, I'll assume that wikipedia articles are accurate and you guys just think it's cool to diss them.

[LDiCesare]

It's obviously inaccurate:

between communist and Vietnamese national forces

Shouldn't that be Vietnamese communist and... ? The communists were veitnamese weren't they?
Well, that's not much and I know little about that war. But as I said, I expect most articles to be correct, but not enough of them that it's actually reliable, so pointing out one article about one topic which is likely to have been reviewed by many is probably not going to show many inaccuracies. My main gripe is about topics which are not very popular: They are likely not to have been reviewed much and corrected in case of errors.

[Thue]

Re: wikipedia

Originally posted by paiktis22
how credible would you judge wikipedia to be?

In generel it is quite accurate, but I wouldn't trust any particular fact for something important, at least not without checking the edit history.

who can write there?

Anyone

is there any kind of check?

As anyone can write, anyone can keep it in check. Since knowledgeable people probably will read the article once in a while, at least through coincidence, there is a good chance that any surviving facts in the article are good.

who administers it?

Volunters (possibly one paid?).
*The Board of Trustees
*A few code developers
*a few sysadmins
*445 "administrators" (in the English version), supereditors with special powers like banning troublesome users. (I am one, fear my wrath )
*Lots of active normal users

who's funding it? (always follow the money)

There is very little money involved. Jimbo, the founder, has said that he has used at least $500.000 of his own money. Another major source is donations from readers. We also got $40,000 from a foundation. Finally, yahoo is hosting some wikipedia servers in Asia with no strings attached. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors

There is no kickback; wikipedia is even a registred non-profit organization. Jimbo the founder and god-king is simply an inspired man who dreams of creating a free and gratis encyclopedia of good quality. The wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, which is similar to the licenses governing free software.

how would you rate its credibility in any case?

I find it to be the most usefull place to find accurate information on the net for my needs.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: wikipedia

Originally posted by Thue


I find it to be the most usefull place to find accurate information on the net for my needs.

BIAS ALERT -- you say this, because you're one of its administrators.