Is Wikipedia even worthwhile?

[Ecthy]

I'm European and I can't see that. But then I haven't compared to too many fellow Europeans. Maybe I just rule.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
QFT

Based on what? I really haven't seen anything that raises wiki above the usual BS that gets spouted here. We've already seen instances where it isn't self correcting and the entries can be written by people with little or no background or understanding on what they are writting about. I haven't even seen anything that states it should even be a first stop for research much less a last one.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Based on what? I really haven't seen anything that raises wiki above the usual BS that gets spouted here.

Take this article, for instance. If I was writing a paper on this, I probably wouldn't use this as a source - but it provides excellent general background information, and citations to other, more reliable sites. The best way to counteract bias in any source is to use many sources.

And I have yet to see a post at poly as informative as that one. Ever.

We've already seen instances where it isn't self correcting and the entries can be written by people with little or no background or understanding on what they are writting about.

I've read plenty of books where the authors had little or no background or understanding on what they are writing about. What exactly is your point?

[Dis]

good example. And I provided a link to a popular war a few months back, and no one could really provide any information to me showing that the information in that article was false. The main knock against it is it doesn't provide every little detail. But what encyclopedia does?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I've read plenty of books where the authors had little or no background or understanding on what they are writing about. What exactly is your point?

I wouldn't consider those books you keep bringing up worthwhile either. What exactly is yours?

If I was writing a paper on this, I probably wouldn't use this as a source

And why is that, pray tell?

[Cyclotron]

Encyclopedias generally aren't used for scholarly papers anyway; that misses the point of the encyclopedia. They serve the purpose of conveniently educating the common man. Even if wikipedia has more flaws than, say, Encarta, far, far more people use it - it has the potential to really spread information that nothing else does. A news story breaks in Yemen, but you've never heard of Yemen before? Wikipedia it. Sure, it's no research source, but you'll be much better informed than if you had no wikipedia - most people don't have the Encylopedia Britannica in their pocket at all times.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
And why is that, pray tell?

Because Wikipedia is hearsay, it's not a primary or secondary source.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I wouldn't consider those books you keep bringing up worthwhile either. What exactly is yours?

That a medium of information should not be dismissed because of flaws in one article or book.

And why is that, pray tell?

Because it's generally not detailed enough to provide any material that would require me to cite it. And what Asher said.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
That a medium of information should not be dismissed because of flaws in one article or book.

I'm not dismissing the medium. The internet has a lot of potential to educate and enlighten. I'm simply dismissing wiki in favor of other sources where I can be reasonably certain the author has an idea what he's talking about. Wiki provides no such promises.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not dismissing the medium. The internet has a lot of potential to educate and enlighten. I'm simply dismissing wiki in favor of other sources where I can be reasonably certain the author has an idea what he's talking about. Wiki provides no such promises.

Wiki has a very broad scope of information over areas where authors are true experts in the field.

They are not comparable, DinoDoc. Wikipedia does not replace primary or secondary sources by experts, it is a casual source with far wider breadth of information compared to other sources.

This has been explained to you several times now, you refuse to accept it for God knows what reason. Your argument fails because Wikipedia does not replace primary or secondary sources by experts.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not dismissing the medium. The internet has a lot of potential to educate and enlighten. I'm simply dismissing wiki in favor of other sources where I can be reasonably certain the author has an idea what he's talking about. Wiki provides no such promises.

No, I'm referring to wikipedia as the medium. Just as a print library has books from all different authors, wikipedia has articles from many different authors. The fact that some are poorly written, biased, or purposefully misleading should cause you to read the rest with a grain of salt, but should not automatically negate the validity of everything else in the encyclopedia.

[Az]

@ Etchy.

4 hrs have passed, it seems.

[Ecthy]

Yeah I'm still not banned

[Asher]

*fap fap fap*

[Ecthy]

Imagine noone was around. How'd that sound?

Or something like that...