Is Wikipedia even worthwhile?

[RGBVideo]

When it comes to science, wiki is excellent, since there is no room for opinions or BS speculation. As an educating tool, it'd be in it's own class.

[Solver]

Actually, Wiki aims, of course, not to be US centric. But yes, US and Western topics get better coverage, which isn't surprising. Consider, though:

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

This is an article on a highly controversial topic, yet it has a good listing of both pro- and against- arguments, as well as views of four major religions. Although it does, for example, miss the Hindu view on it.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by VJ
When it comes to science, wiki is excellent, since there is no room for opinions or BS speculation. As an educating tool, it'd be in it's own class.

I love your earnest delusion that there is no room for opinion or speculation in science.

That is just precious.

[RGBVideo]

I love your earnest delusion that there is no room for opinion or speculation in science.

Perhaps we define the word "science" differently?

I don't believe that anything that can't be proven from axioms is valid science. For example, I wouldn't consider this as valid science. Just speculation, and should be only considered as a possible theory of invididuals.

[-Jrabbit]

Many great scientific advances are the product of speculation. Phlogiston was a wild speculative theory of fire, but so too was the existence of atoms.

The science is in testing these theories and speculations until they become (for lack of a better word) fact. In science, that which is verifiably "factual" changes over time. There are things I was taught in high school science in 1970 (as "facts") are clearly incorrect today. My daughter is being taught different "facts" -- which also may change over time.

At the leading edge, science is all about speculation.

[RGBVideo]

Yeah, as I suspected, we do. For me, "leading edge of science" = fancy word for "speculation".

[-Jrabbit]

Ah, I see. So it's not science until it's proven?

So much for Hawking.
So much for a Unified Theory of Relativity.

Do you feel betrayed when previously accepted "science" is proven wrong?

[MORON]

Accepted science never dies, it just get supplemented

unless you are a biologist or something

[-Jrabbit]

No, some bits of "accepted science" is proven wrong on a regular basis.

[Asher]

http://redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=14873&hed=Wikipedia+Gets+Things+Right

Wikipedia Gets Things Right

Study by Nature finds Wikipedia science entries are nearly as accurate as those in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
December 14, 2005

A team of expert reviewers found the science entries in the online collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia to have about the same accuracy as those in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, according to a Nature article that appeared Wednesday.



Of the 42 science-related entries analyzed in the study, Wikipedia averaged four inaccuracies, while Britannica averaged three. (Inaccuracies included factual errors, critical omissions, or misleading statements, according to Nature.)



Wikipedia has been under fire recently after public criticism from John Seigenthaler, a former editor at USA Today, whose Wikipedia entry had been altered to implicate him in the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy.



The writer of the incorrect information came forward last week after the outcry to apologize for his prank.



Who Can You Trust?

It was also discovered recently that Podshow’s Adam Curry had altered the Wikipedia entry on podcasting to de-emphasize others’ roles in the creation of the new technology for distributing audio files.


After blogger and coder Rogers Cadenhead exposed the fact that Mr. Curry’s IP address was responsible for the ego-boosting edits, Mr. Curry apologized. His deletions have been reworked into the entry.



The incidents set off a large-scale debate over the trustworthiness and usefulness of the open-source encyclopedia.



Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said during the hullabaloo that he would change the contribution rules to allow only registered members to start new entries.



An internal memo from The New York Times published on Poynter Online told writers of that paper’s business section not to fact-check their articles using Wikipedia.



Nature also surveyed recent contributors to its magazine about their knowledge of Wikipedia. Of the more than 1,000 scientists, over 70 percent had heard of Wikipedia, 17 percent consulted it on a weekly basis, and less than 10 percent had ever updated an entry.



In an accompanying editorial, Nature endorsed Mr. Wales’ request for more scientists to contribute their expert knowledge to Wikipedia.

[Bill3000]

I hate the use of "proof" and "fact" in science. That's quite arbitary, and can lead to the mistaken conclusion that some theories that are supplimented by more generalizing theories (Classical Mechanics to Special Relativity, for instance) is "wrong" - that's highly misleading. Science is all about speculation, although one would obviously have to be careful as to not lead that to a nihilistic interpretation of the universe, which opponents of science tend to do. (Example: Someone saying that the earth may not be round, but be a cube instead; while the earth is not a perfect sphere, it is a useful approximation - a far cry from the "cube" example of saying that one theory is wrong)


Oh, and Uncyclopedia > Wikipedia.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by VJ

Perhaps we define the word "science" differently?

I don't believe that anything that can't be proven from axioms is valid science. For example, I wouldn't consider this as valid science. Just speculation, and should be only considered as a possible theory of invididuals.

Where do the axioms come from ?
Can you give one example of science in physics OR chemistry OR biology OR geology?
Or are none of those sciences?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Bill3000
Oh, and Uncyclopedia > Wikipedia.

Lenin entry:


Enlarge
Lenin sporting his trademark zebra-striped pimp hat, with his tricked out '65 Cadillac ElDorado

[Saras]

Communism entry:

[Saras]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes