| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,494 |
| | Posted: | | | | article explaining Microsofts decison to shut down its Encarta operations.. Since Wikipedia is mostly 'user based' and is probably not monitored as well as it should , can you imagine the innappropiate, ill informed .,, and misguided information Wikipedia will have on its hands??  | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 158 |
| | Posted: | | | | Some sources say Wikipedia is in fact just about as accurate as a conventional encyclopedia, which doesn't mean it's perfect. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | OMG.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,796 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wikipediais is free, you get what you pay for. | | | We don't need stinkin' IMDB's errors, we make our own.
Ineptocracy, You got to love it.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln | | | | Last edited: by Srehtims |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 767 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting karlpov: Quote:
Some sources say Wikipedia is in fact just about as accurate as a conventional encyclopedia, which doesn't mean it's perfect. And with "some sources", you mean Wikipedia?  |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Is the loss of Encarta really that bad? I actually thought the product died about 10 years ago.
All textbooks and encyclopedias, online or traditional, have errors, no matter who is publishing them. Many are were skewed by the authors and publishers views. History texts have left out significant events that didn't fit the vision the author had of what happened, or presented them with extreme bias.
With Wikipedia, we have easy, and public, ways to dispute the information presented. It can also get corrected easily. With the traditional paper based encyclopedias, they exist with their errors for many years and the process to get them changed is not as well known.
I think the Wikipedia model is great. I see it as no more risky than trusting a single printed article. Whenever you are doing research, you should be using multiple sources. | | | | Last edited: by jgilligan |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 158 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting marcelb7: Quote:
Quoting karlpov:
Quote:
Some sources say Wikipedia is in fact just about as accurate as a conventional encyclopedia, which doesn't mean it's perfect.
And with "some sources", you mean Wikipedia? I was actually thinking of a National Public Radio report on Wikipedia quite some time back. The report included several individuals, including some who'd formally researched the matter, concluding that Wikipedia was no worse than conventional encyclopedias. In addition, my personal observation is that Wikipedia is incredibly more inclusive, with articles on such obscure topics as actor Vladek Sheybal, editor Cele Goldsmith Lalli, Playboy Cyber Girls, and the European Buddy Longway comic album series. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 281 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting karlpov: Quote:
Some sources say Wikipedia is in fact just about as accurate as a conventional encyclopedia I would not say it is as accurate as a conventional encyclopedia. Wikipedia's home page states "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." "It is Wikipedia policy to add to the encyclopedia only statements that are verifiable, and not to add original research. The Wikipedia style guide encourages editors to cite sources. Sometimes Wikipedians do not follow these policies because they forget or because they are not aware of the policy, and until citations are supplied, readers of the article cannot verify the content in question." How accurate can a encyclopedia be when anybody can add or edit info. If info can not be verified then you can not know if it is true. At least with a conventional encyclopedia I am trusting that all the info writen within the book is verified before published. If I use Wikipedia for a source, I also use other sources to back up the info also | | | | Last edited: by Dragon 6 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dragon 6: Quote:
How accurate can a encyclopedia be when anybody can add or edit info. If info can not be verified then you can not know if it is true. At least with a conventional encyclopedia I am trusting that all the info writen within the book is verified before published.
That's the point exactly. We have to trust the publishers of the 'real' encyclopedias just like we have to trust the people who are editing Wikipedia. The 'real' encyclopedias have been found to be inaccurate or incomplete quite a few times. The 'real' encyclopedias don't usually state where the information comes from, we are asked to blindly trust the editor. With Wikipedia, at least the sources of the information are 'supposed' to be shared so that we have some basis for the trust. Neither one is perfect. |
|
 | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | My favorite Wikipedia subject is this one. | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 158 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dragon 6: Quote:
How accurate can a encyclopedia be when anybody can add or edit info. If info can not be verified then you can not know if it is true. At least with a conventional encyclopedia I am trusting that all the info writen within the book is verified before published.
If I use Wikipedia for a source, I also use other sources to back up the info also Orson Scott Card complained about an error which he found in Wikipedia's entry on him, an error which appeared in many other sources. He would correct it, and the Wiki-users would immediately, on the basis of multiple sources, "correct" it back. Errors can become widely reported, so "verifying" a "fact" by checking several sources isn't always a great idea. (Nor, obviously, is Wikipedia immune to this problem, but no one is claiming that it is inerrant, only that it has wound up as pretty much as trustworthy as an old conventional printed multivolume encyclopedia.) |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,744 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting karlpov: Quote:
Orson Scott Card complained about an error which he found in Wikipedia's entry on him, an error which appeared in many other sources. He would correct it, and the Wiki-users would immediately, on the basis of multiple sources, "correct" it back. Errors can become widely reported, so "verifying" a "fact" by checking several sources isn't always a great idea. (Nor, obviously, is Wikipedia immune to this problem, but no one is claiming that it is inerrant, only that it has wound up as pretty much as trustworthy as an old conventional printed multivolume encyclopedia.) Something similar happened here a few months ago. We got a new Minister for Economic who has 10 firstnames already. Some joker added an eleventh firstname. The very next day the biggest german tabloid printed all 11 firstnames on their frontpage. From there it spreaded to other newspapers and it became virtually impossible to remove that eleventh name from Wikipedia - at least for a while. see also | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
 |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
My favorite Wikipedia subject is this one. But that's not wikipedia... Uses the same software but not the same site. Just sayin' |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
My favorite Wikipedia subject is this one.
But that's not wikipedia... Uses the same software but not the same site.
Just sayin' Uh, well..... and you didn't get it? | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Uh, well..... and you didn't get it? Get what? |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Uh, well..... and you didn't get it?
Get what? It isn't Wikipedia.... I don't like wikipedia...... get it? | | | | Dan |
|