Wikipedia

[DuckRacer]

I've been using it a lot lately, and Diego's thread really just blows my mind in terms of all the info it holds. I can see an extremely detailed list of every Jedi in the Star Wars Expanded Universe. I can see a good, detailed round-up of info on an upcoming game I'm interested in. I can read about photography, the history of it, and how it works. And I could go on.

If there's a car I know about yet it's not in Wikipedia, I can go create an article about such a thing, and give what info I have to anyone who wants to read about the car. I can go ahead and correct spelling errors, add a sentence of info or two, clarify paragraphs, and more very easily... like I own the joint. And it gives me satisfaction looking at the old version of an article and then seeing my changes.

It's just mind blowing, and in my opinion the most useful website out there.

Does anyone else here share the same sentiment? Or do you have different thoughts on it, whether more positive or negative?

 

[CDailey]

I love wikipedia. I go there at least once a day, often times much more. It's where I found out almost all my info about bands and music.

 

[daan]

Its a great resource, as long as you remember its not always right.

 

[Alex.]

Its a great resource, as long as you remember its not always right.

And often biased and edited by possible competitors of the article e.g. apple vs. microsoft

 

[Zrow]

I think a buddy of mine put it best - Wikipedia is a really fantastic resource for all things pop culture, but shouldn't be relied upon for anything that really matters.

 

[sn00pie]

In fact, Wikipedia has been proven as accurate as Brittanica not too long ago.

Yes I think it's awesome, I go there daily.

 

[Jondot]

Its a great resource, as long as you remember its not always right.

Indeed. Which is actually a little worrying considering that I use it as a resource for just about every task. It's easy to forget who actually writes it.

 

[Philly]

I use Wikipedia for a lot. Whenever I write a research paper, I look up what I need on wikipedia and then I go and find articles that say the same thing, quote them, and cite them. Apparently high school was useful.

 

[Kylehnat]

I've found Wikipedia to be very comprehensive, and very accurate in the ways of science, math, and other boring subjects. As long as there is no motivation for anyone to maliciously edit an article (I wouldn't trust the George W. Bush biography), Wikipedia is as good as you will find online. The idea is genius.

 

[Sakiale]

I love it, but school doesn't let me use it...

 

[Keef]

I love it, but school doesn't let me use it...

I was always warned by my teachers that Wikipedia is sometimes vandalized or has errors. Most of the technical articles, like the math and history and whatnot, like Kyle said, are pretty accurate because they're usually made by professionals. But many fad-type articles are all messed up and biased. There was a kid who got a lot of stuff wrong in an essay because he got to that article at a bad time.

 

[niky]

In fact, Wikipedia has been proven as accurate as Brittanica not too long ago.

Yes I think it's awesome, I go there daily.

There are issues with some technical articles, and some of them are very brief and uninformative compared to Britannica.

Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica in limited cases, when doing pure ressearch into obscure or dry subjects. But the moment your subject in any way infringes upon popular culture, religion, politics, you run into tons of articles which are either opinionated, vandalized, inaccurate, or all three.

It's nice to see that the editors are getting more aggressive about locking often vandalized pages, but it saddens me that one person's hard research and work can be obliterated in an instant by a vandal... and that the editors (in at least one case I know of, because I reported it) will merely erase the vandalized section instead of restoring it.

 

[sn00pie]

It's nice to see that the editors are getting more aggressive about locking often vandalized pages, but it saddens me that one person's hard research and work can be obliterated in an instant by a vandal... and that the editors (in at least one case I know of, because I reported it) will merely erase the vandalized section instead of restoring it.

I've read recently that in fact all editions of articles are archived seperately, so when an article is vandalized it's quite easy to get previous versions back.

 

[Turbo Lag]

Wikipedia eh? I go there atleast 5 times a day... mostly i just roam around there and read about cars.

 

[ceiling_fan]

There was a kid who got a lot of stuff wrong in an essay because he got to that article at a bad time.

I should slightly change an article just after getting an assignment on the subject, and see how many dummyheads rely on it.

 

[niky]

I've read recently that in fact all editions of articles are archived seperately, so when an article is vandalized it's quite easy to get previous versions back.

Only if the editor is smart enough to restore the right one...

It doesn't change the fact that opinionated and poorly researched articles still appear on many sensitive issues, and in striving not to appear opinionated, contrarian facts are inserted into many more articles to "balance them out".

Still, Wikipedia is better than nothing. I resort to using it, too, but only for certain things and I review the article for suitability before putting my faith in it.

But on this site, quote from Wikipedia and people will tear you to ribbons... and rightly so...

 

[Muzaffar]

I find Wikipedia very helpful. At least it gives some general knowledge. Just try not to think that Wikipedia has everything correct as sometimes those articles would get sabotage by some vandal of sorts.....

 

[Pupik]

I admittedly read it quite frequently; it's one of the few sites that I can view at work. It's sort of fun to get lost: Eventually, you're reading a page that had (nearly) nothing to do with the page 6 back-clicks before it.

You have to take any part with an opinionated bit with a grain of salt, regardless of the web site. It's usually quite obvious when a viewpoint has been forced into the article as "truth", because the style, form, and layout of the article doesn't quite fit. A lot of articles are getting needlessly detailed, in which information starts to "duplicate"; in some cases, with contradiction and/or omission.

However, despite the fact that nearly "anyone can edit it" (some pages are protected), I'd usually rather read a Wikipedia page on a subject than a fanboy site dealing with the same topic. There's far more of a chance of peer-review and editing, compared to a personal web site or (gasp!) message board entry.

But on this site, quote from Wikipedia and people will tear you to ribbons... and rightly so...

There's an irony to this, since Wikipedia requires a source, and a message board doesn't (although it's preferrable). GTP has changed in this respect; depending on the area of our forum, you have to supply some sort of backup, whether it's a snapshot of your fastest lap in your FTO LM, a news site pertaining to a quote from a politician, or a fancy something-or-other that you own/had/hold hands with.

I have to admit that my stake in Wikipedia is two-fold: I'm a contributing member, and I read too much of Asimov's Foundation series when I was younger. So it's an Encylopedia Galactica for me, without the potential discomfort of performing The Jump.

 

[Joey D]

I use it all the time for work because it provides me enough information without taking a ton of time. Just the other day I had to document the process of making batiks for a customer who bought 3 of them. Wikipedia provided enough information for me to get the jist of what it was. Also anything I need to know about Chinese Dynasties is on there as well so that fairly convenient when I'm trying to date things.

 

[Philly]

I've read recently that in fact all editions of articles are archived seperately, so when an article is vandalized it's quite easy to get previous versions back.

I had heard that there was a revert feature that could be used if any vandalism was reported, maybe even by any editor?

I should slightly change an article just after getting an assignment on the subject, and see how many dummyheads rely on it.

We had an assignment having something to to with Abraham Lincoln in APUS and apparently somebody did this because we looked at teh article the next day and the section we would have used simply said:

POOP!!!

 

[Wolfe]

It's nice to see that the editors are getting more aggressive about locking often vandalized pages, but it saddens me that one person's hard research and work can be obliterated in an instant by a vandal... and that the editors (in at least one case I know of, because I reported it) will merely erase the vandalized section instead of restoring it.

I've read recently that in fact all editions of articles are archived seperately, so when an article is vandalized it's quite easy to get previous versions back.

Only if the editor is smart enough to restore the right one...

Understandable concerns, but...

1. Every article has an entire history of previous versions, even down to the smallest edits.
2. This history function allows you to very easily see which specific part(s) were changed.
3. The editing software makes reverting to a previous version very simple. You don't even have to do any copy-and-pasting.
4. Some editors have bots that can automatically detect certain kinds of vandalism (blanking an entire page, for example) and revert the article back to the way it was before.

It doesn't hurt to dabble in the editing software yourself, guys.

 

[gtavcfan]

Wikipedia. Had a lot of information on some of the bands I listen to. That's where I first read a short-biography on Varg Vikernes (of Burzum), and also, the reason for Per Yngve Ohlin (Dead, of the band Mayhem) commited suicide, before I didn't know. So Wikipedia, great info, but for music, I go to the Metal Archives.

 

[Gen.]

It's like a giant communist style site!

 

[niky]

I admittedly read it quite frequently; it's one of the few sites that I can view at work. It's sort of fun to get lost: Eventually, you're reading a page that had (nearly) nothing to do with the page 6 back-clicks before it.

You have to take any part with an opinionated bit with a grain of salt, regardless of the web site. It's usually quite obvious when a viewpoint has been forced into the article as "truth", because the style, form, and layout of the article doesn't quite fit. A lot of articles are getting needlessly detailed, in which information starts to "duplicate"; in some cases, with contradiction and/or omission.

However, despite the fact that nearly "anyone can edit it" (some pages are protected), I'd usually rather read a Wikipedia page on a subject than a fanboy site dealing with the same topic. There's far more of a chance of peer-review and editing, compared to a personal web site or (gasp!) message board entry.


There's an irony to this, since Wikipedia requires a source, and a message board doesn't (although it's preferrable). GTP has changed in this respect; depending on the area of our forum, you have to supply some sort of backup, whether it's a snapshot of your fastest lap in your FTO LM, a news site pertaining to a quote from a politician, or a fancy something-or-other that you own/had/hold hands with.

I have to admit that my stake in Wikipedia is two-fold: I'm a contributing member, and I read too much of Asimov's Foundation series when I was younger. So it's an Encylopedia Galactica for me, without the potential discomfort of performing The Jump.

I haven't heard that term for a loooong time.

But yeah, the idea of an Encyclopedia Galactica is something to fight for... 👍

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

All kidding aside, too often people dismiss the value of Wikipedia. Sure, it has it's faults, but so does every single source for information, including the so-called almighty Britannica... except when they publish false information, they can't correct it until they publish the next set of volumes. One can certainly argue the point that the significant advanatges to Wikipedia far outweigh the disadvantages... disadvantages that one could also argue have significantly declined over the years.

The real value for me in Wikipedia though is that it is a great jump off point for either researching info, or directing someone to encourage them to look deeper into a subject. While the listings themselves can often be very accurate and well written, the real value in Wikipedia is how well it organizes and lists key links to additional resources for information.

For instance, I used to always link to IMDB when ever I was writing a review or opinion about a film, but now I link directly to the Wiki listing for the film as most of the time it automatically comes with a link to the IMDB listing as well as many other key links about the film, genres, technical aspects, companies involved, and all the cast and crew, and much more.

As other's have said, the real downside to Wikipedia is that if you are not careful you can spend hours going from one link to another, constantly discovering new and fascinating things about people, places, and things that you may have otherwise never given a second thought to before.

 

[Kylehnat]

The real value for me in Wikipedia though is that it is a great jump off point for either researching info, or directing someone to encourage them to look deeper into a subject.

I agree completely. If nothing else, Wikipedia will give you the jist of a subject, along with ideas about what else you can research that's related, and oftentimes, that can be the greatest challenge for research papers/projects. It's definitely a good first step for researching something you know nothing about.