DeletedUser
Hi Jack, i'm skeptical on what you deem "serious" media. 
DeletedUser
Giz, you linked a blog which are notoriously unreliable. Plus the article is 2 years old.
Start posting wiki articles with false info instead of random links to dubious resources. That would be the way to prove your case.
Start posting wiki articles with false info instead of random links to dubious resources. That would be the way to prove your case.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
Hi Jack, i'm skeptical on what you deem "serious" media.
"Sueddeutsche Zeitung" and "Der Spiegel" e.g.
use wikipedia to find out more about them
well, they are definitely more serious than "Bild" that printed his full name in big letters on its title page
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Well, actually, Sanders was was an employee of Bomis. The history in that article is missing, but Sanders and some others were "hired" by Jimmy Wales to create/manage wikipedia as a means to obtain public participation in an otherwise peer-reviewed project called nupedia. Wales made the mistake of allowing Sanders to "prop" himself as the co-founder of Wikipedia and when it came of its own, and after Sanders stopped getting paid to work with wikipedia, Sanders left in a huff (disgruntled employee). Two years later he tossed out nasty comments about wikipedia, which fostered most of the rumors about wikipedia's "unreliability."
This, as it turned out, this was a business ploy. Sanders shortly thereafter started a site called citizendium, which is really just a revamped nupedia.
This, as it turned out, this was a business ploy. Sanders shortly thereafter started a site called citizendium, which is really just a revamped nupedia.
DeletedUser
wow this thread got popular fast
DeletedUser
I knew this guy once, who went to Thailand. He went to sleep once and he woke up missing a kidney!
If you can't remember what it was about, you're much less reliable than Wikipedia.
Anyone can edit it, but every single edit in the history of the article is saved. We know who edited, and when, and can easily revert to correct vandalism.
Is it a good source for a scholarly paper? Nope, nor is any encyclopedia.
There is no single better starting point to begin research than Wikipedia. Get the basics of the subject and then consult the article's sources and your own other sources, e.g. books.
I've never seen anyone bash Wikipedia and give one single specific example of why it's bad. Wikipedia is much more reliable than anyone who bashes it.
DeletedUser14280
I think that Wikipedia is a reliable source.
I tend to use it a lot, and if I wonder where info comes from, I can just click on a reference.
I've clicked references for 8-bit Theater, The Chasers War on APEC, and...I forgot the others.
*click click click* And apparently, when you searched for the term, 'Pitbull with Lipstick", it redirected to Sarah Palin.
I tend to use it a lot, and if I wonder where info comes from, I can just click on a reference.
I've clicked references for 8-bit Theater, The Chasers War on APEC, and...I forgot the others.
*click click click* And apparently, when you searched for the term, 'Pitbull with Lipstick", it redirected to Sarah Palin.
DeletedUser
You have to think of Wikipedia as cliff notes. You shouldn't quote it in an academia paper but as Elmyr said, you can get the basics of the subject and then use the referenced sources and other sources available.
DeletedUser
Not exactly what i'm talking about, but still a good source,
DeletedUser
Wikkipedia seems to be more reliable than this source plus it's usually spelled correctly.
DeletedUser
So a blog is a better source than Wikipedia?
Umm...you know anyone can make a blog and post whatever they want on it, right? With none of the peer review that Wikipedia offers?
nashy19
Nashy (as himself)
Wikapedia is useful for basic learning, loosely confirming insignificant things and finding other sources.
The editors there are generally quite good but there's also a large group of people (normally with bad English) who believe that everybody should be able to edit, in support of free speech :unsure: Basically there's people who want to ignore the discussions and refuse to post accurate information.
Oh and Scientology likes to vandalize everything, my school does too.
When it comes to indepth issues you can study for days to find out if something is flawed or accurate, or you can ask for Wikapedia's opinion and hope the editors put in more work than you did.
Blogs are wrong... most of the time. The idea is to actually check the information.
The editors there are generally quite good but there's also a large group of people (normally with bad English) who believe that everybody should be able to edit, in support of free speech :unsure: Basically there's people who want to ignore the discussions and refuse to post accurate information.
Oh and Scientology likes to vandalize everything, my school does too.
When it comes to indepth issues you can study for days to find out if something is flawed or accurate, or you can ask for Wikapedia's opinion and hope the editors put in more work than you did.
Blogs are wrong... most of the time. The idea is to actually check the information.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
Wikipedia is a bad source.
It's an okay reference, like an encyclopedia, but a bad source.
Oh, and someone asked for specific examples of false articles...one would be the entry on Palin just as she was given the nod for VP under McCain's ticket...(her entry was later edited and corrected, but that was after a whole bunch of media attention).
I would take just about everything on Wiki having to do with politics with a grain of salt...or perhaps the whole shaker...
It's an okay reference, like an encyclopedia, but a bad source.
Oh, and someone asked for specific examples of false articles...one would be the entry on Palin just as she was given the nod for VP under McCain's ticket...(her entry was later edited and corrected, but that was after a whole bunch of media attention).
I would take just about everything on Wiki having to do with politics with a grain of salt...or perhaps the whole shaker...
DeletedUser
I was pointing out the fact that the blog made a good point, it was a good source for what I was looking for.
DeletedUser
Using a blog as a source is like quoting the homeless man on the corner that shouts "The End is Near" as a reliable source on climate change.
DeletedUser14280
What about if it's a development blog for a game in progress?
Does the exception prove the rule?
Does the exception prove the rule?
DeletedUser8950
I'd use wikipedia anyday over a random site or blog, let's put it that way.
If you're doing something serioues as said it is the best starting point, but not the only tool that should be used.
They have millions and millions of articles, and they're run by volunteers for the most part, so you can't expect it to be perfect.
If you're doing something serioues as said it is the best starting point, but not the only tool that should be used.
They have millions and millions of articles, and they're run by volunteers for the most part, so you can't expect it to be perfect.
DeletedUser
I have found an error is Wikipedia!!!
Under the listing for Topher Grace (American actor)
Even with the error, Spiderman 1 and 2 are not listed in his film credits on the wiki page.
Under the listing for Topher Grace (American actor)
Actually Tobey Maguire plays Spiderman. While Topher Grace was in the 3rd Spiderman as Venom he did not play Spiderman and was not in Spiderman 1 and 2. The actors look remarkably alike though and is one of the reason Grace was cast as Venom in Spiderman 3.
Even with the error, Spiderman 1 and 2 are not listed in his film credits on the wiki page.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
The Topher Grace error is fixed already. So I would say that yes, Wiki does a good job of catching errors and getting rid of them. That bit of erroneous info was up for 1 hour and 17 minutes.
Last edited by a moderator: