Wikipedia's shortcomings

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I never said they dont post other sources. What I am saying that often Wikipedia is used, not questioned and the debate keeps on going.

It's a convenient reference. What do you think people are going to do on here - sign up to academic journals?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Find a serious error. Noone's going to give two wanks about how many seasons of Cops there are.

Irrelevant but good try.

Hey I still haven't received your apology.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Irrelevant but good try.

Hey I still haven't received your apology.

It's quite relevant. There are factual errors in all encyclopedic sources - there is no infallible reference (something most of us learn in Uni).

The issue, surely, is when the errors are so serious that they compromise the entire article. Getting the number of seasons of a TV show wrong is a "so what" moment.

[Peikko 1,575]

I never said they dont post other sources. What I am saying that often Wikipedia is used, not questioned and the debate keeps on going.

Everyone can, at any time challenge any reference that any poster makes - but of course to be taken seriously, that challenge has to be backed up with some kind of factual proof of the alternate point of view - few people have the time or inclination to do that - including you on something that really isn't that important or difficult to prove so my point is, so what?

[_Simpson_ 250]

It's a convenient reference. What do you think people are going to do on here - sign up to academic journals?

of course not but to rely on something that any one can go in and change is not the best method of operation.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

What worries me most is the subtitle of this thread:

Take one

Am I to assume another thread such as this one is imminent?

[Peikko 1,575]

What worries me most is the subtitle of this thread:

Am I to assume another thread such as this one is imminent?

Then what is required is to get this thread closed for TOS violations. Once closed, any re-opening of the issue is a TOS violation and take one will be the one and only

Edited July 7, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

of course not but to rely on something that any one can go in and change is not the best method of operation.

So what sources should be used for the purposes of an off topic section of an internet message board?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

All righty then, who wants to go first? Where the hell is Rob when you need him?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Everyone can, at any time challenge any reference that any poster makes - but of course to be taken seriously, that challenge has to be backed up with some kind of factual proof of the alternate point of view - few people have the time or inclination to do that - including you on something that really isn't that important or difficult to prove so my point is, so what?

Indeed. There are review processes for editorial and Wikipedia has been subjected to vandalism, hence the edit permissions of a number of articles have been restricted.

Interestingly enough - there was an article in Nature a few years ago that showed that Wikipedia is only slightly less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

All righty then, who wants to go first? Where the hell is Rob when you need him?

We need pornographic imagery of Phil Collins.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

We need pornographic imagery of Phil Collins.

Then I guess it's your files we need to dig into.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Everyone can, at any time challenge any reference that any poster makes - but of course to be taken seriously, that challenge has to be backed up with some kind of factual proof of the alternate point of view - few people have the time or inclination to do that - including you on something that really isn't that important or difficult to prove so my point is, so what?

Please

So its ok to post faulty info. during a debate and continue it because not everybody has the time to get a real source. Sorry I cant subscribe to that logic.

I have seen it happen here a lot, somebody links to Wikipedia and the assumption is that Wikipedia is right and the debate rages on.

[Peikko 1,575]

We need pornographic imagery of Phil Collins.

We do? I think you go too far sir!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Alas my hard drive is rather poorly stocked

[Peikko 1,575]

Please

So its ok to post faulty info. during a debate and continue it because not everybody has the time to get a real source. Sorry I cant subscribe to that logic.

I have seen it happen here a lot, somebody links to Wikipedia and the assumption is that Wikipedia is right and the debate rages on.

I didn't say that. If you believe your source is faulty and still post it, that's just stupid. However, most people do not post faulty sources deliberately and if you do know that something is faulty and have substantive proof that it is, then go ahead and post it - all this 'it's faulty so we can't rely on it at all' is just meaningless #######.