Wikipedia

[jordanisonfire]

Heh, this occurred to me when I was thinking of a YouTube debate (yes, I think YouTube sucks now, Veoh is way better), but I thought it wouldn't be very good and then I thought of another on Wikipedia. So, do we really need Wikipedia?
Away we go! ^^

[Lykaios]

I use Wikipedia quite a lot, but what else could we use for reference?

[Tncowgirl]

I hate wikipedia!!!!!! That is a very pitiful debate. But I really do. It is a bunch of nonsense. Oh well. that is just me. :D

[Crocolyle]

It's not 100% true and not a legitimate reference tool, but all encyclopedias--regardless of whether or not they are user created or not--are neither specific nor accurate enough to provide more than general information or background on a particular topic.

By no means is a fact from Wikipedia to be used as the deciding factor in an essay, argument, or debate, but it is a useful tool to quickly brief yourself on general facts about a topic or to quickly look something up--even if what you learn should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Dr_House_4ever]

Wikipedia rules! I'm on it almost every day. To be fair, I almost never use it for research or anything of the like (and when I do, only if the article has plenty of sources and links listed), but I do so love to read it.

[jordanisonfire]

I don't really use Wikipedia to find out detailed information. Stuff that can't really have a varied answer, like the capital of Russia, is stuff that I look up on it, as well as plots of movies, books etc. But any detailed stuff like DNA I just don't look up on it. It's too complicated, anyway. ^^

[Zombified]

I've used it a lot when it comes to music.

I have researched a bunch of different guitars and bands through Wiki so I say it's helpful.

[Crocolyle]

Wiki's helpfulness largely depends on what you're using it for.

[Linds.xo]

I think Wikipedia is pretty good.. There has been a few times that the info has been wrong but some of my teachers tell me to use it so it must not be that bad:P

[Rafael Domination]

I use wiki for movie spoilers and stuff like that.

:P Did you know that in 10,000 BC, the main character di-

*Shot by Shadow*

[jordanisonfire]

I know he does, anyway. ^^ Plus the whole story is very much unrealistic and most probably doesn't go with history at all. :rolleyes:

[Dr_House_4ever]

I know he does, anyway. ^^ Plus the whole story is very much unrealistic and most probably doesn't go with history at all. :rolleyes:

Wha -- you mean woolly mammoths weren't used to help build the pyramids?! Aw, man.

[jordanisonfire]

Er... wouldn't they die in the sun? ^^

[Hailstone]

Uhm. Wikipedia is handy for cursory searches in which there's no need for formal research. If you want to know something, know it now, and know it a bit in detail, Wikipedia serves a very nice purpose.

And on the topic of mammoths, I believe there was a sun before, during, and after the major ice age. Perhaps too much sun is what you mean?

[jordanisonfire]

Well, the pyramids weren't constructed in the Ice Age, were they? I'm not sure on this, but just confirm it for me.

[Dr_House_4ever]

If I remember correctly they were built approximately around 2500 BC.

[Shaun]

The Pyramids were not built during the ice age and there were no advanced civilizations, or civilizations in any capacity during the time period that movie is placed. Basically, that movie is what Wikipedia would look like if it were put in film form. Looks awesome, but it's total bullcrap.

Now, to Wiki itself. The only thing I will agree on is that it tends to be a good source for information on the entertainment arts (movies, literature, and music). This is mostly because it's really hard to fake a recording history of any popular band these days on a site like that since people tend to flock to Wiki articles about their favorite bands and are likely to change screwed up information.
But if you want to use Wiki for information that matters to your education, you should probably hit yourself in the head with a frying pan instead, because you'll get the same result. Wiki has a high likelihood of having loads of misinformation in their historical articles and you shouldn't trust anything that claims to provide academic level information that is monitored by non-academics and put together by anyone with a computer. If you have to use Wiki for historical info, use it only as a starting source, a spring board to digging deeper into an issue. Don't use it for anything serious, period. Wiki is literally the worst thing created by a highly technologized society. Misinformation is dangerous and the fact that a website prone to making misinformation easy to spread has gained so much momentum is disturbing. The Internet is getting very dangerous now because it's easy to spread lies and bullcrap info, especially on Wiki.

That's my take. If you want to be taken seriously, go to a legit encyclopedic sources (Britannica, for instance, or one of the many software and online versions of academic encyclopedic sources out there).

[Crocolyle]

In general no encyclopedia should be used for actual research, except maybe for some background information or if you don't understand primary sources. Since High School I haven't been allowed to even crack open an encyclopedia for my classes...

Encyclopedias shouldn't be used because they by their nature can't and shouldn't delve into specifics are vague and unreliable. Use primary sources. Always.

[Shaun]

In general no encyclopedia should be used for actual research, except maybe for some background information or if you don't understand primary sources. Since High School I haven't been allowed to even crack open an encyclopedia for my classes...

Encyclopedias shouldn't be used because they by their nature can't and shouldn't delve into specifics are vague and unreliable. Use primary sources. Always.

I agree to a point. Some of the encyclopedias that have gone online actually have a lot more information than the book forms. You shouldn't use the book forms as primary sources, obviously. Online ones are better for that (legit online ones, which generally require a subscription).

[Pibs]

Personally, whenever I have to research something, I go to wikipedia first. I read the article, keeping in mind that the info may not be correct and is very general. Then I go to at least three other websites to verify the info.

But it's pretty interesting. I personally appreciate it, but I'm not obsessed with it or anything.

[Simone]

Personally, whenever I have to research something, I go to wikipedia first. I read the article, keeping in mind that the info may not be correct and is very general. Then I go to at least three other websites to verify the info.

But it's pretty interesting. I personally appreciate it, but I'm not obsessed with it or anything.


I'm kinda the same, what else can I say?

[SweeneyLovesLovett]

It amuses me sometimes with the crock they come up with :D

[ScottyMcGee]

Why don't they make a Wiki written by the people who the article is about?

Like, for example, Brad Pitt does his own page, so does Ray Bradbury, the President, etc.

[Carraka]

Why don't they make a Wiki written by the people who the article is about?

Like, for example, Brad Pitt does his own page, so does Ray Bradbury, the President, etc.




Maybe because they would omit all embarrassing incidents and embellish all prideful ones?

[Shaun]

Just avoid Wiki. It's healthier.

[Phantom]

I think that it is amusing because so much info is wrong.

[ScottyMcGee]

Maybe because they would omit all embarrassing incidents and embellish all prideful ones?



Oh.



Well, yeah. . .

But still. . .

[Fiction]

Wikipedia is chock-full of info, but you must use it in conjunction with other references to get real, believable information.

[Shaun]

Wikipedia is chock-full of info, but you must use it in conjunction with other references to get real, believable information.

The problem with this is that Wiki has become so popular that other sources now use its information as if it is truth. So, while it's nice to say, it's not that easy. The Internet is both a wonderful thing and a curse for knowledge.

[Eilidh]

I'm terrible with Wikipedia
I edit everything so it's all like
"n den he was all liek OMGZZZZZZZZZ"
NEVER TRUST WIKIPEDIA!

[Andy]

Wikipedia's a good place to start out when doing research. Get the gist of an event or person and what it's about. Then do real research, maybe using the links listed at the bottom of each article for a start.

[appleofmyeye]

Wikipedia is very useful. Maybe not for reports, but things you aren't sure about like a certain term it's great. And I can understand it (most of the time).

[Uriel]

Wikipedia is one of the worst references you can go to. Anyone in the world can edit it to what they think is the best concept.

[appleofmyeye]

It still gives more information than coming in *shrug*. I mean, if I didn't know what and iPod was, for example, even if the wikipedia said 'it playz ur fav songz omg its awesome!!!!!!!' I'd at least know it was a songplayer. And you don't see stuff like that very often :rolleyes:. As long as you go in knowing the information isn't 100% accurate it's great :).

[Zaphkiel]

It still gives more information than coming in *shrug*. I mean, if I didn't know what and iPod was, for example, even if the wikipedia said 'it playz ur fav songz omg its awesome!!!!!!!' I'd at least know it was a songplayer. And you don't see stuff like that very often :rolleyes:. As long as you go in knowing the information isn't 100% accurate it's great :).

But what happens if you don't go in knowing the information is 100% accurate? Then you'd be screwed.:cool:

[appleofmyeye]

If you don't know that Wikipedia isn't as accurate as a book, you deserve to look like an idiot with false information :P.