posted
That's the thing: anyone doing serious research (subject to serious analysis) should know to check the credentials of a source anyway, or else they risk making a fool of themself.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Joe Blow is Googling something, lands on a wikipedia entry, and sees "the free encyclopedia," do you think I'm being unreasonable to suggest that he might take the entry at face value?
I would say that it is unreasonable to accept at face value any site just because you got it by googling.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, neo-dragon, how many people are actually using Wikipedia as a source for real research? I'd guess the average user is just as Twinky described: Joe Blow out googling to find information on something. Wikipedia makes no real caveats about the reliability of their information, instead presenting themselves as some sort of egalitarian alternative to places like Brittanica and Encarta. It's simply misleading.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question. How many of you read blogs? Or listen to talk radio? Can you be sure the info from these sources are true?
Posts: 421 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They aren't a real encyclopedia, and nobody views them as such.
Sure they are.
encyclopedia n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
Nowhere in the standard definitions is reliability or inerrancy required. Implied, sure.
Is the Wikipedia subject to whims and bias? Certainly. But at least there's the option of change. What happened when the traditional encyclopedia had an incorrect fact and you had to wait another year or so for the next set to come out? At least here the possibility of peer review is immediate.
I don't assume everything -- or anything -- I read there is accurate. I tend to go there for suggestions and ideas I can independently verify elsewhere. But here's the thing: I do that with encyclopedias too. Not for everything, I'm reasonably sure that dates and such will be correct. But connections, motivations, trivia? I don't see a lot of difference, except that changes to the more traditional ones will be slower in arriving.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Wikipedia certainly seems to be an encyclopedia. Just as someone could publish in hard copy a very biased encyclopedia, and many of the encyclopedia's nowadays are biased by virtue of omission (being far too short to include substantial information on almost anything).
That greater biases may exist in some cases is a price on pays for greater flexibility and coverage. Just as with any encyclopedia, the point is not to exhaust or to be definitive, but to initiate.
And it is both free as in beer and free as in speech, the two meanings of free I alluded to earlier.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least here the possibility of peer review is immediate.
But peer review relies on the assumption that the reviewers are experts in their field. There is no such assurance with Wikipedia. Also, the peer review process should come first, not after the content has already been edited.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
You are going to lead a frustrating life if you are trying to make sure that people cannot act not smart. Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, neo-dragon, how many people are actually using Wikipedia as a source for real research? I'd guess the average user is just as Twinky described: Joe Blow out googling to find information on something. Wikipedia makes no real caveats about the reliability of their information, instead presenting themselves as some sort of egalitarian alternative to places like Brittanica and Encarta. It's simply misleading.
Then as I said, it's no worse than any other random site which pops up in a google search.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Wikipedia is an egalitarian alternative to traditional encyclopedias, with all that egalitarianism implies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
And as to free as in speech and egalitarianism... well, *thpppppbt* is all I can really say to that. Those are talking points, not selling points. Selling points are things like accuracy.
Edit:
quote:Here's a question. How many of you read blogs? Or listen to talk radio? Can you be sure the info from these sources are true?
I don't read blogs, and I almost never listen to the radio. When I do, it's not talk radio, it's the CBC. For up-to-date information, I hit news.google.ca (from there, I read the story at the site(s) of my choice) and cbc.ca.
posted
I have used wikipedia as a source. If I was writing a literary article for instructional purposes I wouldn't consider it, but if I need to know the population of Luxembourg in a hurry? Wikipedia serves me well.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me point out that I'm not trying to bash Wikipedia. For the most part, it is amazingly consistent and accurate, which is quite a feat when one factors in the whole "anyone can edit" thing.
But if I find an error and try to correct it, what's to guarantee that my edit will stay? What if someone undoes it five minutes later? I don't like that there are no controls and no real authority (at least that I can see) to appeal to. And I especially don't like the fact that source citations are exceedingly rare. Even when something is factual, you can't be sure.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nonsense, twinky, there are extremely few, if any, sources which can be truly trusted. Yet there are large quantities of useful sources.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, it comes down to: who do you trust more, large numbers of anonymous people writing for free, or small numbers of paid editors?
Posts: 285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But a lot of it can be trusted. One could even venture to say that most of it can be trusted. And if you're not looking for everything-relies-on-this facts but a list of, say, time keeping devices and explanations, wikipedia is very useful.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy: yes, something that would have been nice in wikipedia is a better way of citing sources (a "footnote" feature built into the editing engine), which became adopted in the way of culture.
The reason it didn't/doesn't exist is because the wikipedia is based off of a primarily wiki engine which just happens to be used for an encyclopedia, and such a feature is less useful in those cases.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say "truly trusted." I said "trusted." As in, is it accurate enough that I'd be willing to rely on it as a quick reference? The problem with wikipedia is the one that Jon Boy points out in the post above yours.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trust the editors! Editors are the trustworthiest folks there are.
Teshi, the problem for me is that you can never know when you cross the line from reliable to unreliable. If I could check their sources or had the assurance that an expert was in charge, I wouldn't worry. But yes, I think that most of Wikipedia is reliable, especially for more well-established facts like the population of Luxembourg.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it is trustable enough as a quick reference, particularly if you find it high in the google results (another egalitarian method of achieving quality), because it is likely then both regularly edited and considered by many to be a good source on the subject.
At that point, assuming no significant controversy is obvious in the edit history, I would "trust" the facts mentioned about as far as I would trust a traditional encyclopedia: not very far, but something to work with.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, it comes down to: who do you trust more, large numbers of anonymous people writing for free, or small numbers of paid editors?
Exactly Annie. BTW, when is your landmark due.
Twinky, which do you think is more likely to have bias: a paper encyclopedia revised once a year (if that--most articles aren't revised every year) edited by a small group; or a continually edited open project, with thousands of contributers and a neutral point of view as an explict goal?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I addressed that in the post directly above yours. I tend to trust the people who are trained to do something to do that specific something. Perhaps it has something to do with being in a discipline -- engineering -- whose name gets tossed around all the time outside of the scope where it is actually applicable.
Edit: At least in the case of, say, Linux, members of the contributing community have to have a measure of expertise in the area in which they wish to contribute. In the case of wikipedia, no expertise -- indeed, no knowledge, beyond how to use a computer and the internet -- is necessary.
posted
Think of it perhaps this way: you have a group of a dozen or so people, all brainstorming on a topic, bringing together what they know and think they know. This is a valuable resource, though it has no definitive "outcome" or "endpoint". The notion of a finished product is one that wikipedia rejects. Instead, wikipedia is a network of pages filled with constant brainstorming and back and forth -- which is valuable, just as a workgroup brainstorming is valuable. It is not a report from a meeting, and should not be judged in the same way.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fair enough until you get to the "should not be judged in the same way" part. I'm not willing to go that far.
I also don't think that it's as good as "a report from a meeting," but I recognize this as my opinion.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: n the case of wikipedia, no expertise -- indeed, no knowledge, beyond how to use a computer and the internet -- is necessary.
This is true for each individual contribution or edit. But as a dynamic process, the articles get better and more accurate.
Besides, would the stuffy Britannica have an article about exploding whales , complete with photos and a Dave Berry reference?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as a dynamic process, the articles get better and more accurate.
And the people who used it as a reference early on, trusting it to be accurate, are out of luck. The least they could do is have a minimum number of contributors write about something before posting an article about it. That might help.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I don't think the problem is with what Wikipedia is, but rather with what it makes itself out to be. Many uninformed users may assume that it is comparable to "real" encyclopedias in terms of accuracy, and therein lies the problem.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There will be some reports from meetings that will be better, but there will certainly be many that are worse -- meeting reports in many places tend towards a lowest common denominator nature. Similarly with traditional encyclopedia entries, often. Controversial issue? Avoid it all together and only have the bland aspects.
Wikipedia is a dynamic entity, and should be evaluated as such, and treated as such.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Encyclopedia has only meant "mostly inerrant source of knowledge" to the ignorant, as far as I can tell. Wikipedia (accurately) calling itself an encyclopedia should not be restricted by that ignorance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:in the case of wikipedia, no expertise -- indeed, no knowledge, beyond how to use a computer and the internet -- is necessary.
That's vastly overstating things. Wiki contributors are part of a community -- which is the whole point of a wiki. That community may not have the expertise that a small group of editors has [or in some cases it may have more]. But it does have some level of self-selection, self-policing, discourse parameters, editing standards, etc.
Wiki corrects some of the problems associated with publications run by a small group of editors. Of course, in turn it creates it's own set of problems.
This is like the whole "blogs" vs. "mainstream journalism" thing. Blogs can act as a corrective to the MSM as well as providing interesting commentary and specialized expertise. They are nimble and polyphonic. The MSM provides newsgathering and writing and editing expertise as well as (in many cases) some sense of professional standards. It tends to be slow and monophonic.
It's a complementary relationship even when it is adverserial and/or filled with contempt.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, let the uninformed take care of themselves. People that don't take EVERYTHING they read on the internet with a grain of salt are beyond help. And the 3 major paid online encyclopedias don't hold themselves to 100% accuracy either.
posted
It's a matter of just how much are you depending on the information to be accurate?
Based on your need for veracity, you either use a more reliable source or you don't.
With respect to high school history professors, you might be able to wing the poor-man's encyclopedia. But you can't blame anyone but yourself if you get an F on your weekly report.
However, if you do your Doctoral Thesis research based on the poor man's encyclopedia, then Megan is going to laugh at you. A lot.
posted
Good comparison between blogs and wikis, Zal. A few minutes ago, I saw on wiki where the two forms have been merged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlikiPosts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I trust wikipedia, generally, as much as I trust an Encyclopedia Brittanica from 10 years ago. With certain exceptions it is still useful to me, as long as I double check facts that may now be inaccurate. In some situations -- especially up-to-the-minute items -- I prefer Wikipedia.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
