Is Wikipedia even worthwhile?

[muxec]

Wikipedia is the mind the honor and the conscience of our Epoch.

[Dis]

Here's the results of that Wikipedia controversy if anyone cares.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html

This is a problem you may run into with wikipedia. When reading biographies of still living (or perhaps recently deceased) people. Some nutjob is going to try to put something negative in there.

[Solver]

And they have a CNN story about that? Anyone who uses Wikipedia on a semi-regular basis should know that misleading info appears often. And is removed quickly usually. An article on George W. Bush is changed 15 times per day, if not more, to say that he's a moron. And I don't see a CNN story on that...

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Solver
And they have a CNN story about that? Anyone who uses Wikipedia on a semi-regular basis should know that misleading info appears often. And is removed quickly usually. An article on George W. Bush is changed 15 times per day, if not more, to say that he's a moron. And I don't see a CNN story on that...

That's because CNN is part of the biased liberal media, and wouldn't report on something like that.

Those liberal, educated, east-coast elites at CNN think Bush IS a moron.

[VetLegion]

Wikipedia

Obviously, be careful if you read about politics, but checking up some technicality is usually safe.

Wikipedia has an advantage even over better sources because of its clear and standardized layout. If I type something in google and wikipedia link is the sixth or the seventh, I prefer it over the top ranked result.

[Arrian]

Those liberal, educated, east-coast elites at CNN know Bush IS a moron.

Fixed.

-Arrian

[Shi Huangdi]

If you want a learn about a topic but you don't have time to go do in-depth research on it, and most of us don't have time to do that for everything we might be interested in, then Wikipedia is an excellent source.

[Winston]

On controversial issues Wikipedia always follows the law of the lowest common denominator - or simply what seems to be the consensus among the bland, often heavily PC-influenced crowd that contributes the most to it.

As a result, for the purpose of backing one's position in debates, which by definition is over controversial topics, Wikipedia is virtually worthless about 90% of the time.

Now for trivial reference, such as the time of birth and death of public figures, geographical and technical topics, it can be useful. But I'm becoming increasingly aware of another weakness, which is that in a lot of cases it is immensely U.S.-centered. Not just in the selection of articles it covers, but more importantly by omitting information within articles that is outside the everyday scope of the life and interests of most Americans.

The worst thing one could do is take the information provided by Wikipedia as the literal, undisputed truth, which it seems all too many people are, be it from ignorance, laziness or the fact that they see their own opinions seemingly validated and confirmed by the information contained in its articles.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Winston
As a result, for the purpose of backing one's position in debates, which by definition is over controversial topics, Wikipedia is virtually worthless about 90% of the time.

Untrue. In my experience, most arguments are over obvious topics that are not generally controversial, in which the disagreement is founded primarily on the stupidity or ignorance of one or more parties.

[Dis]

I typed in all the sex stuff on wikipedia and read that. I'm a pervert I know. But if any of you don't know how to perform a sexual position, wikipedia will help you out. Although there are many other more... ahem graphic sites that can educate you in that area as well.

[Winston]

Cyclotron,

If that is your experience, then good for you. I frequently find that on subjects that are likely to be contested in debate, it is not so much the truthfulness of what is written in a specific article, but rather the objective importance and relevance of information that is left out.

[Thue]

Originally posted by Winston
Cyclotron,

If that is your experience, then good for you. I frequently find that on subjects that are likely to be contested in debate, it is not so much the truthfulness of what is written in a specific article, but rather the objective importance and relevance of information that is left out.

Can you give a concrete example?

[Winston]

Not off-hand, no. It's not too often that I consult Wikipedia anymore on those subjects, precisely because of my reservations. Maybe I should have worded it 'I have in the past frequently found...'

You mean to say you've never encountered omissions of any relevant information on contested topics yourself?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Dis
I typed in all the sex stuff on wikipedia and read that. I'm a pervert I know. But if any of you don't know how to perform a sexual position, wikipedia will help you out.

Dis pwnz thread

[appleciders]

Actually, my favorite point on Wikipedia is the way everything's so effectively cross-linked. I'm an avid browser, and being able to go off on tangents just by clicking the word is great.

While Wikipedia's accuracy may be in question, the sites at the bottom of the page are usually wonderfully informative and from reliable sources.

I'd never cite Wikipedia on a research paper or the like, but if I need a ten-second summary of a topic or idea, it's the first place I head.