Wikipedia-love or hate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beeblebrox237
  • 77 comments
  • 3,645 views

Do you like wikipedia? Do you think it is credible?

  • I love it!

    Votes: 58 48.3%
  • I like it

    Votes: 47 39.2%
  • I am indifferent

    Votes: 11 9.2%
  • I dislike it

    Votes: 4 3.3%
  • I hate it!

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • I think it's very credible

    Votes: 19 15.8%
  • I think it's somewhat credible

    Votes: 35 29.2%
  • I don't think it is very credible

    Votes: 4 3.3%
  • It is not credible at all

    Votes: 7 5.8%

  • Total voters
    120
I like wikipedia, it's convenient if you want to do some reading or get a good understanding of a situation. It's not really credible as a resource, but it is a good way to get a grasp of something before you look into more specific articles/websites, etc.
 
Love it here. Helped me with all my school assignments. However, I must point out I only used it as a measure of last resort.


That awkward moment when I write seven lines of text about an anecdote, only to delete it because my english is not good enough to explain it properly.
 
Wiki is great because of the game I play on it, wiki-clicks. Here's how it works -

Minimum of 2 players.
1 player chooses 2 random words e.g Concord & black hole. (That's a bit too easy so don't try that one)

The winner of the game is the person that can get from the Concord page to black hole page by using a few links as possible.

Once the first word is typed in and the page is up, no other use of the keyboard is allowed, it can only be done by clicking on the links within each article page.

EDIT: If any one would like to play it with me, send a PM and I'll send back the 2 words.

A lot of people I've played with are morons and look up all of the links before telling me the 2 words so they know the shortest way. :grumpy:
 
Last edited:
Wiki is great because of the game I play on it, wiki-clicks. Here's how it works -

Minimum of 2 players.
1 player chooses 2 random words e.g Concord & black hole. (That's a bit too easy so don't try that one)

The winner of the game is the person that can get from the Concord page to black hole page by using a few links as possible.

Once the first word is typed in and the page is up, no other use of the keyboard is allowed, it can only be done by clicking on the links within each article page.

EDIT: If any one would like to play it with me, send a PM and I'll send back the 2 words.

A lot of people I've played with are morons and look up all of the links before telling me the 2 words so they know the shortest way. :grumpy:

Let me ruin this game... or at least give you a few wins.

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=71414


The goal of this game is to start at a random article, click on the first link in the article text not in parentheses or italics, and then repeat until you reach Philosophy. You then post the number of articles you go through to get to philosophy.
 
Let me ruin this game... or at least give you a few wins.

Ah, that's no fun now is it. It's fun enough if the words are really far removed. Yesterday I did 'carrot - ink' which was a tough one, my best was 5 clicks. :(
 
Wikipedia right now is a terrible source - as information on there right now could be erroneously entered. Wikipedia a few times in succession is fine as a starting point (that allows you to verify the information) but you should always refer to their sources rather than use it as the source.

This.

It is an amazing springboard and great way to get a basic idea of what something is. But ultimately, you will need to review the sources and some other data if you want to have solid info.

Still, great way to waste time and learn (kind of) when you are bored/procrastinating.
 
I love it, but all the teachers in the school talk about it as it's a terrible source and how everyone who edits it is wrong. I see it in the other students, who get mad when I say wikipedia. As for me, I use it for everything

My school teachers wanted me to use 5 year old books rather than wiki.

Yeah old books with out dated information, or newer information which may be wrong.
 
Yeah old books with out dated information,

Some information doesn't date no matter how old it is.
Simple Example. Ohms law is still V=IR just as when I learnt it in the 1980's.

Wiki is a starting point nothing more, it does that well though.
Many a time I've come across incorrect information, take it all with a pinch of salt, it is the interwebs after all.

Cheers Shaun.
 
Last edited:
I think its great to get background knowledge or basic knowledge on a subject to then further research from but I wouldn't rely on it as a sole source and I would never reference it in a report or anything....

Also at the end of essays its also good to take some of the references used on wikipedia for yours :D I love wikipedia!!
 
It's good as a quick directory. At least it's not Conservapedia.
 
I love it and think it's very accurate and credible. The amount of donations and everything that site gets provides more than enough for the founder to hire fact-checkers.
 
Hire? You mean those volunteer edit-freaks who spend all day arguing the littlest points, editing out facts from politically charged topics while leaving slavishly detailed articles about fictional Star Wars characters intact are actually paid? :D
 
Some information doesn't date no matter how old it is.
Simple Example. Ohms law is still V=IR just as when I learnt it in the 1980's.

Wiki is a starting point nothing more, it does that well though.
Many a time I've come across incorrect information, take it all with a pinch of salt, it is the interwebs after all.

Cheers Shaun.

A book on the solar system that said we have 9 planets and Saturn has 30 moons?

My science teacher wanted me to use books rather than wiki.
 

Credible information right here. I mean, I didn't know that Alex DeLarge raced for Rental F1 Team before I looked on Uncyclopedia :lol:


Seriously though, Wiki has helped me a lot over the years, especially at college. I've seen my fair share of mistakes and incorrect info there though, but it's not the only place to find information on the interwebs, so I tend to look elsewhere as well.
 
A book on the solar system that said we have 9 planets and Saturn has 30 moons?

My science teacher wanted me to use books rather than wiki.

Whatever those liberal commies in the Commission say, Pluto is still a planet, and by damn, we are going to conquer it! By force!
 
For me:

<3 mai Wikipediazzz!!! :dopey:

As far as I'm concerned, the amount of people that go and put rubbish on it, there's going to be others that fix it up. Me for one. I'm forever fixing stuff that's not correct on Wikipedia, and it doesn't get changed again soooooooo...there's that...
 
Whatever those liberal commies in the Commission say, Pluto is still a planet, and by damn, we are going to conquer it! By force!

To me a Planet is an object that orbits its parent star.
A moon is an object that orbit a planet.

So yes i still see that Pluto is a planet.

But i know Saturn has more than 30 moons

Wiki says their are 53 named moons plus 9 un-named and www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html says the same thing.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/saturn.htm
This site seems to be way out of date.
 
To me a Planet is an object that orbits its parent star.
A moon is an object that orbit a planet.

So yes i still see that Pluto is a planet.

Couple of problems there.

Pluto also orbits another body called Charon - or rather it forms a binary system with Charon and both orbit a common point located between them. Charon cannot be Pluto's moon and Pluto cannot be Charon's moon. Are both planets?

There's also bodies like Sedna, Quaoar, Makemake, Haumea and, on a smaller scale, Ceres, Vesta, Pallas and Eris. They only orbit their parent star and nothing else - are they planets? In fact one such body - Ida - has a smaller body - Dactyl - that orbits it. Is Ida a planet and Dactyl a moon? What about comets?


These are precisely the problems that plagued existing definitions and precisely why they needed changing. Now we're no longer saddled with such a lollygagger as Pluto, everything's much clearer and neater.
 
To me a Planet is an object that orbits its parent star.

Better start counting the asteroid belt... and the Oort cloud

A moon is an object that orbit a planet.

What about the bits that make up rings?

So yes i still see that Pluto is a planet.

It can be either, but it is quite small for that... and its satellite, Charon, is a third of its mass...

But i know Saturn has more than 30 moons

Do you? Have you verified them yourself? What you know you've read, and most of the current data is from the Cassini mission, which did reveal a lot of neat and fun things about Saturn.

Wiki says their are 53 named moons plus 9 un-named and www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html says the same thing.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/saturn.htm
This site seems to be way out of date.

I could go change it to say 30. Or 70. And that is the issue with the Wiki. I find it a bit amusing that you didn't use the source that is probably going to be the most reliable, NASA, considering they are in charge of the Cassini mission.
 
Looked for NASA when i searched google but it wasn't in the top10.

But when i did my solar system assignment when i was at school i did use NASA and Wiki.

Plus changes are logged in Wiki and most of the time there are checks before edited topic is updated.

Better start counting the asteroid belt... and the Oort cloud

I will also count all the objects in the Kuiper Belt while i am at it.

What about the bits that make up rings?

Rings are made up of ice, asteroids and other planetary fragments.

Not a single body like a moon is.

Do you? Have you verified them yourself? What you know you've read, and most of the current data is from the Cassini mission, which did reveal a lot of neat and fun things about Saturn.

I think i saw Triton through a telescope when i was younger.
 
Last edited:
Looked for NASA when i searched google but it wasn't in the top10.

But when i did my solar system assignment when i was at school i did use NASA and Wiki.

Plus changes are logged in Wiki and most of the time there are checks before edited topic is updated.

Yes, that maybe. It doesn't mean it is always accurate. And searching for "NASA Saturn" gave that page quite easily. Learning how to find information is a valuable skill.

When did you do this Solar System assignment anyhow?

I will also count all the objects in the Kuiper Belt while i am at it

Ah yes, I was forgetting something. You must feel clever.

Rings are made up of ice, asteroids and other planetary fragments.

Not a single body like a moon is.

Guess what the Moon is? Part of the Earth. Guess what Phobos and Deimos are? Captured asteroids. Well, I'll edit this in - they are likely captured asteroids. Though quite possibly the debris from an impact as well... which makes them, get this, planetary fragments then. Oh, and for kicks, Charon is believed to be mostly ice, if we want to go back to Pluto.

Honestly, you might want to stop digging for a second and realize you are standing in the hole.
 
Last edited:
I use Wikipedia every day although I would never use it as an (only) source for critical information. It is fairly easy to see which type of articles will be credible and which will not. For instance, if I as a layman would like to know all I need to know about the citric acid cycle then I would probably go no further than Wiki while most articles on music artists are more often than not just fanzines.
 
Ah yes, I was forgetting something. You must feel clever.

Not really.

I love astronomy.

And i am aware that Mars has asteroids that are moons.

And searching for "NASA Saturn" gave that page quite easily. Learning how to find information is a valuable skill.

When did you do this Solar System assignment anyhow?

I just searched "Saturn" in google.

If i remember correctly it was either from 10~12 years ago.

I should buy a telescope again and start looking up to the skies again.
 
To me a Planet is an object that orbits its parent star.
A moon is an object that orbit a planet.

So yes i still see that Pluto is a planet.

But i know Saturn has more than 30 moons

Wiki says their are 53 named moons plus 9 un-named and www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html says the same thing.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/saturn.htm
This site seems to be way out of date.

Planets are distinguished from Dwarf Planets in that they are deemed to have 'cleared their neighbourhood' of any other obects that match them in terms of mass and gravitation. Size is not necessarily a decider in this because both Ganymede and Titan, which are moons, are larger in size Mercury, and Planet, but their lower densities mean that they are less massive. It just happens that all Dwarf Planets are very small because this small size and low density means their gravity wells are not particularly strong, nor are their hill spheres particular large.

Ceres doesn't fit the bill because it orbits in the asteroid belt, and it's orbit lies close to those of Juno, Pallas, Vesta, which are all very large asteroids of a similar size, but are non-spherical so they aren't considered dwarf planets.

Pluto doesn't because it is in a binary system with it's largest moon Charon, and they orbit around each others center of mass.

Haumea, Makemake anmd Eris don't because they lie in the Kuiper belt and so are surrounded by similar sized objects. With most of these though it is yet to be determined if they have acheived hydrostatic equilibrium or not. There could be many more Dwarf Planets in our Solar System.

The rings of the outer planets are defined as rings and not as moons because they are incredibly diffuse, incredibly thin (Saturn's rings are 50,00km wide, by only 20 metres thick), and made up of tiny particles, the largest of which are probably no bigger than a car. Close observations show that they are clearly the remnants of either a moon that exceeded the roche limit of it's primary and was ripped apart by tidal forces, or their was a collision between two moons. Also certain moons, like Io and Enceladus, erupt particles from geysers and volcanoes that add to the rings.

Not really.

I love astronomy.

And i am aware that Mars has asteroids that are moons.

Astronomy kicks ass! :D

Mars' moons are thought to be captured asteroids because of their small size, shape, composition, and because of the fact that Mars is in very close proximity to the asteroid belt.
I think i saw Triton through a telescope when i was younger.

You must mean Titan. Triton orbits Neptune, has half the diameter of Titan, and a considerable lower albedo than Titan does. Neptune itself comes out no more than a tiny blueish disk under even the most powerful ground-based telescopes. :)
 
You must mean Titan. Triton orbits Neptune, has half the diameter of Titan, and a considerable lower albedo than Titan does. Neptune itself comes out no more than a tiny blueish disk under even the most powerful ground-based telescopes. :)

Frankly i don't even remember what i saw yellow-orange dot.

Don't think it was Mars as i would have assumed Mars would be more orange-red.
 
Back