Over half of online adults use Wikipedia: survey
martin14 @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:03 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Wiki isn't consisent enough for me to use. It is open to abuse and I've spotted the odd hidden agenda. The F35 article was a prime example with one of the Rideau Institute's frothing at the mouth-anti-military-as-left-as-they-come being a source.
I do agree that it is a good place to start sometimes and a well sourced wiki-page can help you to go in the right direction, using quoted sources instead of the wiki article itself. I'm still not sold on it's accuracy and therefore it's credibility.
I do agree that it is a good place to start sometimes and a well sourced wiki-page can help you to go in the right direction, using quoted sources instead of the wiki article itself. I'm still not sold on it's accuracy and therefore it's credibility.
I use it as a source for basic science topics for my novels and it's great. Whether it's to find out the orbital speed of Carme, how long an Au is, or the basics of fusion power, Wikipedia provides great facts as well as refs for more details.
Come on, tt's not as bad as you make it out. One ought not to use it for thesis work, but one can certainly use it for facts.
Facts like 2 + 2 = 5 4, or the orbital speed of brown spider venom, sure.
Anything with a political or historical tinge to it, forget it.
PostFactum @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:24 am
My parents don't know what it is 
Public_Domain @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:49 am
Gunnair @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:20 am
martin14 martin14:
Gunnair Gunnair:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Wiki isn't consisent enough for me to use. It is open to abuse and I've spotted the odd hidden agenda. The F35 article was a prime example with one of the Rideau Institute's frothing at the mouth-anti-military-as-left-as-they-come being a source.
I do agree that it is a good place to start sometimes and a well sourced wiki-page can help you to go in the right direction, using quoted sources instead of the wiki article itself. I'm still not sold on it's accuracy and therefore it's credibility.
I do agree that it is a good place to start sometimes and a well sourced wiki-page can help you to go in the right direction, using quoted sources instead of the wiki article itself. I'm still not sold on it's accuracy and therefore it's credibility.
I use it as a source for basic science topics for my novels and it's great. Whether it's to find out the orbital speed of Carme, how long an Au is, or the basics of fusion power, Wikipedia provides great facts as well as refs for more details.
Come on, tt's not as bad as you make it out. One ought not to use it for thesis work, but one can certainly use it for facts.
Facts like 2 + 2 = 5 4, or the orbital speed of brown spider venom, sure.
Anything with a political or historical tinge to it, forget it.
I agree, though basic historical facts are fine.
Regina @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:26 am
I'll use if accuracy isn't important.
martin14 @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:26 am
Regina Regina:
I'll use if accuracy isn't important.
What, the orbital speed of brown spider venom isn't important ?
bootlegga @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:37 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
If the wiki article isn't enough for you to use for quick references, then look at the reference sources it lists
The references are excellent tools to find other sources and help you find the answer you are looking for.
Public_Domain @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:12 pm
HyperionTheEvil @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:51 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Wiki isn't consisent enough for me to use. It is open to abuse and I've spotted the odd hidden agenda. The F35 article was a prime example with one of the Rideau Institute's frothing at the mouth-anti-military-as-left-as-they-come being a source.
I do agree that it is a good place to start sometimes and a well sourced wiki-page can help you to go in the right direction, using quoted sources instead of the wiki article itself. I'm still not sold on it's accuracy and therefore it's credibility.
I do agree that it is a good place to start sometimes and a well sourced wiki-page can help you to go in the right direction, using quoted sources instead of the wiki article itself. I'm still not sold on it's accuracy and therefore it's credibility.
The information for the F-35 costs per unit was fine, since the Links to the actual manufacturers was and is included, not to mention stats from the US and Royal air force including their original sources
Still horribly overpriced and now apparently a flawed aircraft
Mustang1 @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:10 pm
Regina Regina:
I'll use if accuracy isn't important.
Agreed. Good jumping off point, but not a discourse weapon.
Gunnair @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:43 pm
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Wiki isn't consisent enough for me to use. It is open to abuse and I've spotted the odd hidden agenda. The F35 article was a prime example with one of the Rideau Institute's frothing at the mouth-anti-military-as-left-as-they-come being a source.
I do agree that it is a good place to start sometimes and a well sourced wiki-page can help you to go in the right direction, using quoted sources instead of the wiki article itself. I'm still not sold on it's accuracy and therefore it's credibility.
I do agree that it is a good place to start sometimes and a well sourced wiki-page can help you to go in the right direction, using quoted sources instead of the wiki article itself. I'm still not sold on it's accuracy and therefore it's credibility.
The information for the F-35 costs per unit was fine, since the Links to the actual manufacturers was and is included, not to mention stats from the US and Royal air force including their original sources
Still horribly overpriced and now apparently a flawed aircraft
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:11 pm
Your boyfriend is back.
Gunnair @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:12 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Your boyfriend is back.
I see that.