Wolfire Games Forums

Renegade_Turner wrote:Here here. I'm tired of people bashing Wikipedia the whole time. Obviously it takes a bit of common sense, but you can pretty much spot the bullshit information (which rarely stays for more than 10 minutes) a mile away. If you see "George Bush is a prick LOL!!!" on George Bush's wikipedia page, you can make an educated guess for yourself.

That is, unless you're stone-fucking-retarded.

Also, our lecturers generally say that it's not a problem to read Wikipedia to glean a rough background of understanding on a particular topic, just don't rely upon it as a source. You can rely on some of the sorces it links to. They don't reccommend Wikipedia, but they recognise it as a quick and easy way of finding out about something which would otherwise take a while to find out.

For example, if I keep hearing the term "equity" in lectures, and can't for the life of me remember what the hell equity is, I can just look it up on Wikipedia.

I totally agree
in a common dictionary there's a factual error in every fourth article, and it's every third article for wikipedia. Quite a difference but still, Wikipedia rocks :3

Renegade_Turner wrote:Here here. I'm tired of people bashing Wikipedia the whole time. Obviously it takes a bit of common sense, but you can pretty much spot the bullshit information (which rarely stays for more than 10 minutes) a mile away. If you see "George Bush is a prick LOL!!!" on George Bush's wikipedia page, you can make an educated guess for yourself.

That is, unless you're stone-fucking-retarded.

Also, our lecturers generally say that it's not a problem to read Wikipedia to glean a rough background of understanding on a particular topic, just don't rely upon it as a source. You can rely on some of the sorces it links to. They don't reccommend Wikipedia, but they recognise it as a quick and easy way of finding out about something which would otherwise take a while to find out.

For example, if I keep hearing the term "equity" in lectures, and can't for the life of me remember what the hell equity is, I can just look it up on Wikipedia.

Blook blook.

m3nace wrote:... I totally agree
in a common dictionary there's a factual error in every fourth article, and it's every third article for wikipedia. Quite a difference but still, Wikipedia rocks :3

Hehe ... Articles in a dictionary ...

tokage wrote:... There are topics, where there really is no neutral point of view, others are being influenced by certain peer groups. ...

There is always someone with a neutral point of view ... however that also usually makes them indifferent on the subject ... And no one preaches to others about being indifferent on a subject.

Wikipedia is a good source if you're looking for facts that aren't politically heated ... Articles on people in politics, or political issues itself are the most likely to be incorrect ...

The articles least likely to be incorrect is probably the ones that have to do with math and science ... because you either know what you're talking about (thus you do editing) or you don't know and thus not edit ... no one says "Fuck you Gauss!" and edits Gauss's Law because they hate with Gauss or want to make a point ... (unless someone here edits it solely to prove me wrong ...)

Assaultman67 wrote:

m3nace wrote:... I totally agree
in a common dictionary there's a factual error in every fourth article, and it's every third article for wikipedia. Quite a difference but still, Wikipedia rocks :3

Hehe ... Articles in a dictionary ...

tokage wrote:... There are topics, where there really is no neutral point of view, others are being influenced by certain peer groups. ...

There is always someone with a neutral point of view ... however that also usually makes them indifferent on the subject ... And no one preaches to others about being indifferent on a subject.

Wikipedia is a good source if you're looking for facts that aren't politically heated ... Articles on people in politics, or political issues itself are the most likely to be incorrect ...

The articles least likely to be incorrect is probably the ones that have to do with math and science ... because you either know what you're talking about (thus you do editing) or you don't know and thus not edit ... no one says "Fuck you Gauss!" and edits Gauss's Law because they hate with Gauss or want to make a point ... (unless someone here edits it solely to prove me wrong ...)

oh shi*
i meant encyclopedia

I figured that i should have pointed it so that you don't get a verbal flogging from someone else ...

h2ostra wrote:There are, however, certain things that wikipedia is not so good for. Musical genres, for example. Even something like last.fm is much more likely to give you a good idea of what genre a band plays.

Ho yes, my god the amount of times I've seen pop rock and pop punk bands identified on Wikipedia as emo because their singer has a tearcatcher fringe is ridiculous. People look at bands now and start making judgements on what genre of music they play without hearing them.

tokage wrote:What really is a problem is what is not written in an article and how the presented information is weighed in context, though. There are topics, where there really is no neutral point of view, others are being influenced by certain peer groups. Topics linked to scientology or nazi ideology, for example, are notorious for edit wars.

Well yes, I agree with you there. All things include bias. In the same way that Wikipedia articles are subject to extreme bias, you can also say that historical texts can just be a matter of bias. This is why cross-referencing is so important.

To be fair, in an investigation reported by Nature, Wikipedia came close to the Encylopedia Britannica in terms of accuracy.

I think the thing to consider is, as time goes on Wikipedia has a genuine chance of becoming more and more accurate in the important established articles, and is specifically useful for current information.

Bias is pretty difficult to eliminate completely. I can see just about the same amount of bias in a textbook as in a wikipedia article, it is slim to none. If a source is discredited because it is able to be changed by an idiot for 5 minutes, even though it is also able to be updated more frequently than most other mediums, people need to get over themselves.

I did not realize how much I would derail this thread when I mentioned Wikipedia. Silly me. No mere comment goes un-argued on the Internet.

Why does that stupid roll smiley grin every time?! It should not grin, it doesn't properly express sarcasm way.

Smileys shouldn't HAVE to convey your sarcasm.

I think you're missing the point guys. Sarcasm doesn't exist.

Renegade_Turner wrote:You should be stripped of your entitlement to attempt sarcasm. You're no good at it. Your satire is severely sub-par. Please just be literal in future, it's more appropriate for you that way. Makes it easier to colour inside the lines.

You're just upset that no one agrees with you, and you're avoiding the point by skirting around it and only addressing your own post rather than anyone else's. Nice try. Now you look foolish.

EDIT: Never mind, I don't feel like arguing. (Yes, you can interpert that as me a) chickening out, b) agreeing with you, c) digging myself a bigger hole or d)all of the above or e) other.)

Shut up and eat your vegetables. if you spit them in the toilet again you're getting grounded for a week. If you remembered to flush the toilet, we might not have caught on.

ಠ_ಠ .... what Grayswandir said..