Posted March 11, 200718 yr It is one of the 12 most visited websites in the world, indispensable to millions of users. From Aa ('an 80km river in northern France') to ZZ Top ('an American blues rock band'),online encyclopedia Wikipedia has entries on just about everything. But last week the website was engulfed in controversy after it was revealed that one of its main contributors had faked his qualifications. Writing under the pseudonym Essjay, Ryan Jordan, who had edited more than 20,000 pages of information, claimed to be a professor of theology. But when a magazine published an article on Wikipedia two weeks ago, many were puzzled to see 'Essjay' also had a specialist knowledge of American pop singer Justin Timberlake. It transpired that Jordan was actually a 24-year-old college dropout from Kentucky, and three days later he resigned from Wikipedia. The scandal has thrown the authority of the encyclopedia into doubt. Critics argue that anyone with access to the internet is allowed to edit the entries, though Wikipedia insists that the sheer number of users ensures errors are swiftly corrected. Wikipedia is open to abuse.
March 11, 200718 yr The short answer, is that Wikipedia is NOT all that accurate at all... So many corner-cutting uni students who have been using Wiki as a reference tool for writing essays have fallen foul of this and other sites too that purport to be 'factual'.. There really is no substitute for looking up actual reference books ....
March 11, 200718 yr I use Wikipedia a lot, but I only quote the parts that are actually sourced from somewhere reliable - in short, if it's a point that is risky to bring up and isn't sourced, I won't use it.
March 11, 200718 yr I use it a lot, BUT I am fully aware that anyone can edit it and it's not as reliable as it might seem, so I take more serious stuff with a pinch of salt. However, my Media teacher recently discovered this site and is revelling in the thousands of articles on TV programmes, films, media technology etc. He calls it his "new favourite site" and I've found that he even quotes from the damn thing :lol: Of course, all the kids know that half of the stuff Wikipedia is "teaching" him is untrue. :lol: We might let him know sooner or later ^_^
March 11, 200718 yr I HATE it. And what bugs me is when you try and correct the info they change it back again. :rolleyes: It's stupid! :lol:
March 11, 200718 yr I HATE it. And what bugs me is when you try and correct the info they change it back again. :rolleyes: It's stupid! :lol: You need a source to back up your corrections BTW otherwise they usually just revert your edit ;)
March 11, 200718 yr I HATE it. And what bugs me is when you try and correct the info they change it back again. :rolleyes: It's stupid! :lol: It can be silly for sure. Seems that it's lost it's original spirit.
March 11, 200718 yr However, my Media teacher recently discovered this site and is revelling in the thousands of articles on TV programmes, films, media technology etc. He calls it his "new favourite site" and I've found that he even quotes from the damn thing :lol: Of course, all the kids know that half of the stuff Wikipedia is "teaching" him is untrue. :lol: We might let him know sooner or later ^_^ :lol: :lol: What a silly sod... The first thing my lecturers at Uni told me was never to trust anything off a website without properly sourcing it.. That advice stood me in good stead... Not that I didn't look to Internet articles and journals on occasion, but I always made damn sure that I did comparative research in a library and I would never use the net as my sole source...
March 12, 200718 yr Personally I think it's the single most important resource on the internet. I absolutely love how it's user-managed because every single person has SOME particular interest or knowledge, so everyone can add to it. I love how I can look up a particular wind turbine somewhere and find that someone with a special interest, expertise, and enthusiasm for wind turbines has offered all of their knowledge and it's at my fingertips. Wikipedia isn't always accurate and should NEVER be cited in an article, but it can play an important role in research. I used to look up an item, read about it on Wikipedia, and then check the sources at the bottom. It's a great way to begin research. Edited March 12, 200718 yr by Consie
March 12, 200718 yr Wikipedia isn't always accurate and should NEVER be cited in an article, but it can play an important role in research. I used to look up an item, read about it on Wikipedia, and then check the sources at the bottom. It's a great way to begin research. Only to begin research though... Too many people take it at face value and treat it like it's gospel truth or summat... I think "Use With Caution" is good advice where Wiki is concerned...
March 12, 200718 yr I'm the same ... if I'm starting an essay I'll use Wikipedia to get a general idea of everthing and relevent points, and then research it more thoroughly using other more valid sources and books. I'll rely on it for general knowledge, for example if I'm wondering how old someone is or where they're from, but I only take it at face value for stuff that it's not *really* important whether I know it's true or not.
March 12, 200718 yr Only to begin research though... Too many people take it at face value and treat it like it's gospel truth or summat... I think "Use With Caution" is good advice where Wiki is concerned... Agreed. The problem is it often says what people WANT to believe - how many records has Madonna sold now? 350 million?? :lol:
March 12, 200718 yr ok it's like the beginning point for most research, but it is on the whole fairly accurate, even if it's staff are not :lol: Wikipedia survives research test The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy. Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page. But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler. Open approach Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English. It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry. We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles. In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica. The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information. "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature. "But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively." Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study. "We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said. Writing style Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused. The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource. "But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature. "There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor." Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler. The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert. The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker. Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures. Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.
March 12, 200718 yr Yeah I agree use with caution. Unless an article has references at the bottom to back up what it's saying then always take with a pinch of salt. Especially ones that have the words [citation needed] in the text - I've been noticing more and more of those recently
March 15, 200718 yr I don't think I've ever used it. It has too much of a bad reputation now, i can't take it seriously.
March 15, 200718 yr It is one of the 12 most visited websites in the world, indispensable to millions of users. From Aa ('an 80km river in northern France') to ZZ Top ('an American blues rock band'),online encyclopedia Wikipedia has entries on just about everything. But last week the website was engulfed in controversy after it was revealed that one of its main contributors had faked his qualifications. Writing under the pseudonym Essjay, Ryan Jordan, who had edited more than 20,000 pages of information, claimed to be a professor of theology. But when a magazine published an article on Wikipedia two weeks ago, many were puzzled to see 'Essjay' also had a specialist knowledge of American pop singer Justin Timberlake. It transpired that Jordan was actually a 24-year-old college dropout from Kentucky, and three days later he resigned from Wikipedia. The scandal has thrown the authority of the encyclopedia into doubt. Critics argue that anyone with access to the internet is allowed to edit the entries, though Wikipedia insists that the sheer number of users ensures errors are swiftly corrected. Wikipedia is open to abuse. btw isnt this copied straight from something the Daily Mail*? i actually read the article watching Grey's the other night. had people like Peter Tatchell moaning that he wasnt just a gay rights dude but a dude who is interested in all human rights. and also Edwina Curry *Could be the Daily Express, they are both the same and have free things most days for dad.
March 15, 200718 yr The short answer, is that Wikipedia is NOT all that accurate at all... So many corner-cutting uni students who have been using Wiki as a reference tool for writing essays have fallen foul of this and other sites too that purport to be 'factual'.. There really is no substitute for looking up actual reference books .... also there a lot of dicks on the site who are mega obsessed fans who go round attacking their rival bands etc. There really is no substitute for looking up actual reference books .... If you like Music (not just obsessed with one celeb who happens to release records :lol: ) Colin Larkin has a book coming out (in 10 volumes and a consice one). also Martin C Strong's Discog books are good (probs better than Guiness Hit single and albums book!!! more interesting to discover things) and Guardian International film guide. Wiki might be alright for a quick look (esp if you wanna illustrate a story) but rather sit watch tv and delve into my reference books if i want better facts
Create an account or sign in to comment