Wikipedia - questions and answers

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Q: Why can't I use Wikipedia in a bibliography?
A: Because I can edit wikipedia any time I like, and can make it say anything I like. So that is a very good reason to ban it from bibliographies.

Q: If you take a random fact from wikipedia, how likely is it that it will be proved wrong by an authoritative medium like, for example, Encyclopaedia Britannica?
A: I don't know for sure, but my experience suggests that the likelihood is very small indeed.

Q: If I look up a subject, say Ecuadorian presidents, on wikipedia, how do I know that some prankster in Timbuktoo hasn't written something ridiculous on that topic?
A: I don't, but my research suggests that it is highly unlikely

Q: What does NickKIELCEPoland think are wikipedia's good points?
A: An enormous amount of information, and an orderly way of presenting it.

Q: Why does NickKIELCEPoland think that some academics dislike wikipedia so much?
A: Because they find it annoying that ordinary people can get so much information so easily.

[beamer1]

academics fear that normal people will find out how easy it is to be an academic

[Wile_E]

Problem with Wiki is that anyone can amend the entries and for whatever reason they like, so you can't guarantee the accuracy of the information on there.

[rosetintedglasses]

Problem with Wiki is that anyone can amend the entries and for whatever reason they like, so you can't guarantee the accuracy of the information on there.

You should check out some of the stats from Nick

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Problem with Wiki is that anyone can amend the entries and for whatever reason they like, so you can't guarantee the accuracy of the information on there.

Wile_E, I wrote a lot about that problem in the initial posting, and why it isn't really as big a problem as people say, although it does make it impossible to use in bibliographies and courtcases.

In the last few days, I have found that Wikipedia is even better than I thought. It's utterly amazing. I don't know how they do it, but they have totally revolutionised the concept of knowledge.

[Wile_E]

Well, I know from things I've looked up that a lot are missing important information, simple example would be if you look up Sammy Hagar, the "early years" is missing masses of information about how and why he became a guitarist/singer, his mother only bought him his first guitar if he promised to learn to play a specific song for her (Never on a Sunday)...

I'm not denying it's not a brilliant source of information, just that it can also be lacking aswell as be wrong in some cases, there was an entry at one point for Chad Smith (Red Hot Chilli Peppers drummer) that was just some garbage someone put in based on a rumour until it was corrected.....

[Ann1]

Why not put it in Wile? I believe anyone can add to it. Who is Sammy Hagar?

[Wile_E]

Why not put it in Wile? I believe anyone can add to it. Who is Sammy Hagar?

American rock singer/guitarist, he was the frontman for Van Halen from the mid 80's to mid 90's.

[whitewolf01]

Wikipedia is a useful tool, yes it is not useful in aspects of court cases and biographies, but none the less it is a culmination of knowledge and particularly useful I have found for music references and particularly if you just want to a simple essay for school. It is most handy.

If you need to define something more clearly use a wider search and go to the library, the thing to remember is that everything we have is written by somebody and their may be facts which we have taken for granted which are inaccurate anyway, a sort of example of that is the downgrading of Pluto as a planet. But things like that hardly affect every day life, do they.

Wikipedia is not unlike youtube, it can be used as a simple reference. I include youtube in this because of the wonderful array of music and if you type in WW2, there is a wonderful array of history and video which is as good as any library. Combined there is much you can find, not everything by any means, but a lot.

As my daughter and I found to our surprise, you can even find out about balancing equations on both youtube and wikipedia..

Brilliant

[NickKIELCEPoland]

To me there is one key difference between wikipedia and youtube.
Youtube is just random videos posted by people.
Wikipedia follows a clearly thought out structure for people, places, sciences etc.
It looks spookily as if the same person, or group of people, has actually had a hand in every single entry, and even in every language. This is not the case with youtube. Youtube isn't magic in that way. I just find it difficult to explain how wikipedia manages this. An ordinary person may well post something about his favourite politician or whatever somewhere in Colombia, but will he/she make it so neat and orderly as is every entry on wikipeda.

Okay, I'm sure there is a non-magic explanation to this orderliness, but it is still mighty impressive to me.

[Seb]

Wikipedia can be useful if the sources are named in the articles, it makes them more believable and you can check yourself then if they are right.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Wikipedia can be useful if the sources are named in the articles, it makes them more believable and you can check yourself then if they are right.

That's a very good point. If you find an interesting fact on wikipedia, it is an easy matter of just checking to see if it tallies with a more acknowledged source.

Another very good thing about wikipedia, is this: Yesterday, I was going to check the results in the European Athletics Championships. I went straight to wikipedia, instead of going to the official website. I found myself asking myself, why did I prefer wikipedia. Then I realised; when you see the results on wikipedia, ie. gold: such-and-such silver: such-and-such, bronze: such-and-such, and you have never heard of the contestants, you can easily click their name on wikipedia, and there's all the information you want. Wikipedia is the fastest way to learn a lot of information.

[milkhope2010]

Wikipedia is as reliable as the people who contribute to it.