Wikipediaism

[gonzo]

I have noticed many people supporting their opinion with links to Wikipedia. That is not an authoritative source. Anyone can change it to suit their needs or just on a whim.

[daiquiri]

Precisely.

[michael pierzga]

What is your source Gonzo ?

[gonzo]

My source of what?

[Submarine Tom]

Good posts Gonzo.

I don't know about you but I source info from many different places depending on many variables.

I just love how some are willing to accept what is written! Oh, let me clarify that, unless it's written in an open forum, then some love to contradict.

What fun...

-Tom

[gonzo]

Wikipedia has some good information. However, it is hard to tell if it has been edited. Also, as any other source, it needs to be backed with research, references or some other way. Because it is used so often, it is usually at the top of a internet search, which makes it more likely to be used.

[bntii]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

[gonzo]

They certify themselves. That means nothing.

[PAR]

I've edited Wikipedia on several occasions. It's usually a good place for general knowledge, but not so much for detail, which often has incorrect elements.

[bntii]

Originally Posted by gonzo

They certify themselves. That means nothing.

Independent research shows the strength of Wikis as a source of reliable information.

Read through the Wikipedia page I referenced- it is a good starting point on the topic.

A good starting point is after all the best use of that sort of site for information gathering.

[gonzo]

References need to be independent for better reliability. The whole concept of vox populi as authority does not convince me.

[TeddyDiver]

It's actually quite good source to get some background info in most cases, and often containing several links to references and further details of the subject. Read with care and caution like everything else in this world, bcs there's a lot of disinformation in every media including printed books. That of course is IMHO

[gonzo]

I agree there is good information. My point is that too many people won't go beyond the first convenient hit on the internet. Wikipedia usually comes first, which has made it an authority in all kinds of subjects for the general public.

[Submarine Tom]

TD,

Do you really mean "disinformation" or actually "misinformation"?

Please clarify, thanks.

-Tom

[MatthewDS]

In late 2005 the journal Nature compared science articles found on Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, and found that on average, the Wikipedia articles contained 4 errors per article, while the Britannica articles only contained 3.

The full article is behind a paywall, but if you have a subscription to Nature, you can read more here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html

My point is that while Wikipedia isn't perfect, it is nearly as good a source of information as the Encyclopedia Britannica, which for many is a gold standard source of knowledge.