Over half of online adults use Wikipedia: survey
Newsbot @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:36 am
Title: Over half of online adults use Wikipedia: survey
Category: Tech
Posted By: Khar
Date: 2011-01-17 08:52:20
martin14 @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:36 am
30 second sound byte on tv = 30 second research on a topic.
EyeBrock @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:07 pm
It's a sad indictment of lazy and flawed research.
Regina @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:08 pm
Yup!
mentalfloss @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:07 pm
Well it's as good as Britannica apparently.
EyeBrock @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:12 pm
mentalfloss mentalfloss:
Well it's as good as Britannica apparently.
I find that hard to believe. Did you wiki that?
bootlegga @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:21 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
It's a sad indictment of lazy and flawed research.
You make it sound like nothing on Wikipedia is accurate, when some studies have shown that it is at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
The only problem I have with Wikipedia is that people use it only as their source of info. That flaw lies in the people using it, not Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a fantastic place to start one's research, but it shouldn't be the only place.
Zipperfish @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:44 pm
Wikipedia is great. This morning I was discussing the venom of the brown recluse spider with a biologist and we were able to immediately sort out some issues by visiting wiki. Or when I'm reading some new physics thing and I can't remember what the heck a Higgs Boson is, wiki is there.
But boy does it get bad whenever there is an element of controversy involved. Then yyou get these special interest types with seemingly nothing better to do with their time than police their pet wiki articles to crush any divergence. On politics and modern history, it's a popularity contest
mentalfloss @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:02 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
mentalfloss mentalfloss:
Well it's as good as Britannica apparently.
I find that hard to believe. Did you wiki that?
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html (same link as Bootlegga)
What really pisses me off is the fact that we still need to pay for scholarly articles.
xerxes @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:20 pm
It's great if you want to look something up really quick, but not for academic research.
EyeBrock @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:40 pm
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.
BionicBunny @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:48 pm
Do you ever wonder how many poorly researched newsarticles have been done since Wikipedia opened or how many false reports of death have been made since the internet matured.
EyeBrock @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:50 pm
No.
xerxes @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:10 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.
I would say it greatly depends on the information you're looking for. If you're looking for scientific or historical information that's incontrovertable, then Wikipedia is great.
But if you're looking for information that's relatively new or in dispute, then Wikipedia really exemplifies the incompleteness of the truth.
I remember hearing about when Thatcher was PMm the Ministry of Education then made a rule that no history was to be taught in schools that had happened within the last 20 years as it was too soon to gain a clear picture of the events.
Gunnair @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:19 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.
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.