Is Wikipedia even worthwhile?

[Dinner]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

The full article detailing how wikipedia doubters like DinoDoc got pawned.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Wikipedia has certain problems, the biggest of which is that it allows anyone to edit it.

That happens to be its greatest strength.

[Odin]

On another forum I used Wiki to pwn some Hindu Indian nationalist moron who was indignant when another poster stated the well established fact that the Indo-Europeans were white people from SE Russia (the Indian guy thinks they came from India and that Sanskrit was Proto-Indo-European and that any white person who disagrees with him is a Eurocentric fool with no respect for the infinite wisdom of sacred hindu texts ).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The full article detailing how wikipedia doubters like DinoDoc got pawned.

pawned for what? and at what shop?

[Dinner]

You've claimed wikipedia is highly inaccurate; so much so that it shouldn't even be considered a creditable source. A well respected scientific magazine, Nature, did a study and found Wikipedia to be at least as accurate on average as the world's most respected printed encyclipedia. You even started a typical DinoDoc troll thread to attack it obliquely.

The only problem is you were wrong.

[Winston]

You conveniently overlook that the comparison was done for scientific entries specifically.

That's not the area for which people have been claiming inaccuraccy, incompleteness and imperfection.

[Dinner]

I wouldn't use it for hot button issues but for run of the mill stuff it is a good first source which acts as a primer. Basically it helps you decide where to continue looking.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston
You conveniently overlook that the comparison was done for scientific entries specifically.

That's not the area for which people have been claiming inaccuraccy, incompleteness and imperfection.

You wouldn't recognize impartiality if it ran you over in a truck, spray painted you pink and rubbed double D boobies all over you while singing "Copacabana".

[Winston]

See, that's the kind of inclusive attitude that someday might just convince somebody that you're right about everything in the entire universe.

If you can make the other loonies at the asylum listen, of course.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm going to post an article on New Zealand.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The only problem is you were wrong.

About what? You've already said that you wouldn't use it unless you are going to claim that a biography of a journalist is a hot button issue. It really is strange that people keep making attacks on the PoV I stated and yet make concessions to it in the next post.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Odin
On another forum I used Wiki to pwn some Hindu Indian nationalist moron who was indignant when another poster stated the well established fact that the Indo-Europeans were white people from SE Russia (the Indian guy thinks they came from India and that Sanskrit was Proto-Indo-European and that any white person who disagrees with him is a Eurocentric fool with no respect for the infinite wisdom of sacred hindu texts ).

It's not well established that the speakers of PIE lived in SE Russia. It's the most widely accepted hypothesis, and I personally happen to favour it, but it's certainly not well established.

I'd furthermore like to express doubt we know their skin colour. Somewhere on the pink/brown spectrum characteristic of western Eurasia is more than likely, but to know for certain you'd need perserved skin or DNA that you could securely connect to the PIE-speakers.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Winston
See, that's the kind of inclusive attitude that someday might just convince somebody that you're right about everything in the entire universe.

The irony is strong in this thread.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Winston
You conveniently overlook that the comparison was done for scientific entries specifically.

So, what is your methodology to objectively judge the accuracy of articles on controversial issues?

Originally posted by Winston
That's not the area for which people have been claiming inaccuraccy, incompleteness and imperfection.

So, some people are claiming articles on controversial issues inaacurate, incomplete, and imperfect.

No, tell me that ain't true.

[Winston]

I don't need a "methodology", Urban Ranger. Just tallying up the relative number of articles I've seen that skewed the picture away from impartiality and relevance.

I often found it to be more of an indexed Letters to the Editor-section than a notable encyclopedia.