Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Wikipedia: Useful or tool of the fake internet intellectual?

54 replies to this topic
theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#1

Posted 25 January 2014 - 05:51 PM

I'm very interested to know how you all feel (especially older forum members) about the rise of Wikipedia and the subsequent impact on discussions (particularly online, on forums) that it has had.

 

Did you enjoy discussions prior to this being around more than you do now? Do you think that Wikipedia is a great tool or a cheap shortcut that creates arrogant internet experts?

 

Would you rather get your information from Wikipedia or by doing broad, proper research from other reputable sources online and subsequently forming that information into your own thoughts/posts?

 

How does it make you feel when you are trying to have a discussion and someone with no knowledge of a topic quotes Wikipedia at you and then defends that point to the death?

 

Please feel free to post in this thread regarding anything Wikipedia related, or your responses to any of the questions contained within this post.

 

 


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#2

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:03 PM

Like everything else in the world, it has it's positive and negative qualities. I think it's perfectly fine to get a general idea about whatever the topic is that you're finding out about, but I wouldn't write a thesis based around it. 

  • Adler, Th3MaN1, Raavi and 5 others like this

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#3

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:07 PM

If you know something about subject, you'll spot someone who's just reading Wiki in a heartbeat. So it's not a problem. On the other hand, if you need to pick up some details and figures for an argument, it's a great tool. So it's definitely good all around.

  • lil weasel, Tyler, sivispacem and 3 others like this

Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#4

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:07 PM

Just like Nale Dixon said, it has it's uses. Also, I can spend time reading the wiki about different things, and even if there's a chance that all of it is a lie, as long as it's an entertaining read, I'm fine with it. And most important: I used Wiki A LOT for school work, so it's a useful tool for me.

  • Finn 7 five 11 likes this

Hodgey.
  • Hodgey.

    GTA III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, IV, TLAD, TBoGT and V all 100%

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2008
  • None
  • Best Avatar 2012
    Winner of Euro 2012 Prediction League

#5

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:11 PM

I like to use it as its quick to find out little bits of information on different subjects, but like others have said I wouldn't learn all you needed to know about a subject from Wikipedia article.


Raavi
  • Raavi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Antarctica
  • Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#6

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:14 PM

Using it as a quick aid in a debate is one thing, but simply copy and pasting without bothering to edit the urls or anything out tends to get on my nerves. If you want to rehash what you read on Wikipedia, fine but at least put some effort in and paraphrase. 

  • Ex Hellraiser and theadmiral like this

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#7

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:14 PM

What is the reasoning behind someone with no knowledge or interest in a subject viewing a discussion, quickly reading a Wikipedia article about that topic, then wading into the discussion like an expert and defending these points as if they are a lifelong scholar on the issue?

 

Is it a need to feel intelligent? Love of arguments? Inferiority complex?


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#8

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:18 PM

Wikipedia is a great tool. It does help me a lot in school work and in-general basically. It's also quite reliable. But I don't always use Wikipedia. I use other sites like Yahoo Answers.

 

What is the reasoning behind someone with no knowledge or interest in a subject viewing a discussion, quickly reading a Wikipedia article about that topic, then wading into the discussion like an expert and defending these points as if they are a lifelong scholar on the issue?

 

Is it a need to feel intelligent? Love of arguments? Inferiority complex?

 

Probably a need to feel intelligent in my opinion.

  • theadmiral likes this

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#9

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:21 PM

You can't imagine the times Wikipedia has saved my lazy ass from doing school works.

  • universetwisters likes this

Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#10

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:32 PM

Yeah, it's great but,

 

266e3c7bcccd633b7ccc4e564331f5d4.png

 

:blink: What the hell? Sometimes I think people who are high edited the pages. 

  • na89340qv0n34b09q340 likes this

Gray Wolf
  • Gray Wolf

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2012
  • None

#11

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:35 PM

Yeah, it's great but,
 
266e3c7bcccd633b7ccc4e564331f5d4.png
 
:blink: What the hell? Sometimes I think people who are high edited the pages.

I wonder how many members/guests go to Google and type that in after seeing this.

Spoiler

Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#12

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:36 PM

I wonder how many members/guests go to Google and type that in after seeing this.


Spoiler

 

Btw it isn't there anymore. That image was from 2012. I think they edited it now and got back to their senses but I'm not sure. 


Andreaz1
  • Andreaz1

    ♪ Anything 80's ♫

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2010
  • Sweden
  • Helpfulness Award

#13

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:45 PM

Yeah, it's great but,
 
http://gyazo.com/266...e564331f5d4.png
 
:blink: What the hell? Sometimes I think people who are high edited the pages.

I love Wikipedia and use it all the time when I'm at home. I have never come across something I immediately spotted as fake, which many seem to think is the case with 100% of the whole website, and that really annoys me. Sure stuff like the above can happen but it usually doesn't last any more than a few minutes before someone more serious comes along to revert it and the bots/scripts they have in place seem good at picking it up as well.

School projects are a completely different manner. Teachers in schools will usually frown upon someone citing Wikipedia and in universities and such I think it is completely forbidden. Wikipedia itself usually cites their own sources that you can go to as well though.
  • theadmiral likes this

Kazandra
  • Kazandra

    serial killer

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2013

#14

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:48 PM

You could say the same thing about your local library, or any place or online site that is supposed to contain facts.  I believe people have to study multiple points of view or material about a certain subject from multiple sources.  Too many "facts" today are either too far based in opinion, or complete fabrications.


CatDog96
  • CatDog96

    Dayman

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • Australia

#15

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:51 PM

I use wikipedia to find lists of movies that actors have been in and to find albums to download, I have also used it to learn about big cats (eg.Lions, Panthers, leopards ect.)

  • na89340qv0n34b09q340 likes this

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#16

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:54 PM

Is there not something to be said for making a point that when the information was more difficult to come by (IE, prior to Wikipedia) students were exposed to a valuable skill (proper research) and that the same skill is lacking in many people of the Wikipedia generation?


Kazandra
  • Kazandra

    serial killer

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2013

#17

Posted 25 January 2014 - 07:03 PM

Is there not something to be said for making a point that when the information was more difficult to come by (IE, prior to Wikipedia) students were exposed to a valuable skill (proper research) and that the same skill is lacking in many people of the Wikipedia generation?

 

There is also the opposite end of that token.  Now, it could be said that we have even more access to skilled research because of the internet.  All I'm saying is that you can't just get all your information from one source and think that you are an expert on any given subject.  

 

Wikipedia, on it's own, is not sufficient enough to cite as "fact".  It's the same thing for people who get all their information from Fox News or Conservapedia.  Wikipedia might not be as biased, but it is open to editing by the entire public, and as we all know, sometimes the public can be pretty daft, or just make things up because of spite.  


Andreaz1
  • Andreaz1

    ♪ Anything 80's ♫

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2010
  • Sweden
  • Helpfulness Award

#18

Posted 25 January 2014 - 07:04 PM

Is there not something to be said for making a point that when the information was more difficult to come by (IE, prior to Wikipedia) students were exposed to a valuable skill (proper research) and that the same skill is lacking in many people of the Wikipedia generation?

Sure they had to put more effort into their research, I know I've never had to go to a library to do any research. More time consuming sure, but if effort = skills I'm not sure. If we exclude Wikipedia, finding sources online can also take work. For one school project I had to find info about the conflict between Chechnya and Russia and it isn't necessarily just about typing "chechnya russia" into Google and there you go. It's very important that you compare all the sites you do find, and also do more of a "background check" of it. Who wrote it, where is he from, what education/experience does he have in the field and so forth. More so I believe than when you use books from the library.
  • theadmiral likes this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    Ya filthy animal.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#19

Posted 25 January 2014 - 07:23 PM

Is there not something to be said for making a point that when the information was more difficult to come by (IE, prior to Wikipedia) students were exposed to a valuable skill (proper research) and that the same skill is lacking in many people of the Wikipedia generation?

 

The only research I did at school was, well, I didn't f*cking do any research. I pretty much just used text books and what I learned in a lesson. It was very rare for me to use the internet for homework, mostly because I had a piece of sh*t computer and we didn't switch to broadband until my last year at school.  

 

But at university you'll quickly learn that you can't just use wikipedia for your research. Most of my research is from books that I borrow from the library or online journals etc. It's the same for other people on my course and the same for my friends too. I still use wikipedia quite a lot, just because it's very useful for quickly checking stuff and getting a general idea. If you want to get a good grade you have to use the proper sources and still do actual research as well. But I've still used wikipedia for virtually every paper that I've had to write.

 

I'd say wikipedia helps people do "proper" research, rather than hinders them. 


Tyler
  • Tyler

    Roy Orbison singing to the lonely

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#20

Posted 25 January 2014 - 08:07 PM

Information is fragmented and obfuscated. Things like Wikipedia attempt to centralize information into a hub for quick reference as well as giving the resources for more in-depth study. Skimming across the articles will give someone a general sense of things but as K^2 pointed out it's easy to see when someone does this just before posting their response in an argument. I think the emphasis should be on the person, not the tool. Wikipedia is ultimately much more useful and beneficial than it is a tool of arrogance. The site is community edited and as such you have to be observant of the information you're picking up and actively think about how and if it connects correctly, as well as read more from secondary sources. As a result I think it's viable to use Wikipedia as a quick reference guide and an introduction for deeper understanding. It's ease of access and fluid nature makes it easier to concentrate on topics you're interested in rather than attaining a "skill" of going to the library and searching the index for your subject. It's the same with most of the Internet in general: it centralizes a smorgasbord of freely-available information and thereby saves time and effort searching so that you're allowed to appropriate more effort into the topic you're interested in.

  • epoxi, lil weasel, Finn 7 five 11 and 1 other like this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#21

Posted 25 January 2014 - 08:27 PM

Honestly, I don't see a problem with using Wikipedia in order to help you further your knowledge or form an opinion. Many of the articles have citations, it's up to the reader to check those citations carefully before making a claim. It's a great tool against ignorance if used properly, and many of the important pages are safe-guarded against vandalism and whatnot. The small town in the middle of nowhere might not have a protected page, though, so if you're researching something like that, you'll want to be extra careful. 

 

Having access to a wide array of information like that and choosing to ignore it in order to present your own 'knowledge' is idiotic. If I'm making a case for or against something, generally I'll check online in order to make sure what I'm saying isn't bullsh*t or off by a bit or to pull up percentages, and many times Wikipedia is the tool that I use.

 

If someone uses Wikipedia in order to form an opinion or make a point, I have no problem as long as the point they're making is true and not being pulled from thin air. "Proper research" can sometimes be avoided unless you're writing a research paper or writing part of an academic journal since Wikipedia contains much of the research in a centralized area, with citations, like I said before.

  • lil weasel and Kristian. like this

Adler
  • Adler

    Hello, Smith. ( -`)ノ

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2009
  • None

#22

Posted 25 January 2014 - 08:39 PM

Hang on, lemme pull up Wikipedia so I know how to reply to this topic.


Black & White
  • Black & White

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2013
  • United-States

#23

Posted 25 January 2014 - 08:41 PM

Wikipedia is useful. People cannot simply post anything as moderators are always looking out. Reliable sources also need to be mentioned in order for the comments to stay on their website..


albanyave
  • albanyave

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • None

#24

Posted 25 January 2014 - 08:57 PM

Wikipedia is a good quick reference tool.  There are a lot of articles that wouldn't be found in your more traditional reference materials.  Good starting point but always follow up with more authoritative sources.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#25

Posted 25 January 2014 - 10:36 PM

Wikipedia is as good or as poor as the works it references. It's nothing more than a handy repository of information really. Anything you pull from it still needs to be properly fact-checked if you want to use it in a discussion without people laughing in your face.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#26

Posted 25 January 2014 - 10:54 PM

this question is extremely loaded...

 

Wikipedia is a useful tool if you use it in conjunction with prior understanding and comprehension of the subject in question.

if you already don't know what you're talking about, quoting Wikipedia isn't going to improve your situation. in fact, it will only make your ignorance more obvious to those who are already informed on the subject.

  • epoxi likes this

epoxi
  • epoxi

    Your Mother

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003
  • None
  • Best Poster [Vehicles] 2014

#27

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:10 PM

ceiling-jimmy-wikipedia-watching-donate-

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#28

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:12 PM

Both. There's some really good information on it, but unfortunately, a lot of it is also administered by people with a huge bias. Head over to the Talk pages and look at the sources: you'll notice that for some of them, the sources have dead links, are blogs, biased sources, etc. I remember suggesting an edit a year or two again to... I don't remember what page lol I pointed out that the "Reception" section had a bias, since everything was positive. I found a few articles from blogs of professionals since they were using sources from blogs, but the admins resisted and just kept giving me excuses.

 

There's also the fact that Wikipedia has a whitelist of "trusted" references, which is mostly made up of mainstream media outlets. Unfortunately, a f*ckLOAD of our media has a bias/agenda, and that will reflect on Wikipedia. That's not really so much their fault as it is the media's, though.

  • epoxi likes this

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#29

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:44 AM Edited by Fireman, 26 January 2014 - 12:45 AM.

Wikipedia (11px-Speakerlink-new.svg.pngi/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or 11px-Speakerlink-new.svg.pngi/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ wik-i-pee-dee-ə) is a collaboratively editedmultilingualfree Internet encyclopedia that is supported by the non-profitWikimedia FoundationVolunteers worldwide collaboratively write Wikipedia's 30 million articles in 287 languages, including over 4.4 million in the English Wikipedia. Anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles, which on the Internet comprise[4] the largest and most popular general reference work,[5][6][7][8][9] ranking sixth globally among all websites on Alexa with an estimated 365 million readers.

 

Spoiler


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#30

Posted 26 January 2014 - 07:06 AM

Wikipedia is a great tool. It does help me a lot in school work and in-general basically. It's also quite reliable. But I don't always use Wikipedia. I use other sites like Yahoo Answers.
 


What is the reasoning behind someone with no knowledge or interest in a subject viewing a discussion, quickly reading a Wikipedia article about that topic, then wading into the discussion like an expert and defending these points as if they are a lifelong scholar on the issue?
 
Is it a need to feel intelligent? Love of arguments? Inferiority complex?

 
Probably a need to feel intelligent in my opinion.

Perhaps that's part of it, but the other part is when you see someone saying something that doesn't sound right, you can quickly wiki it and check and provide a counter, if you are wrong, the other person will prove it and you will be more knowledgeable for it. I don't do this, generally I skip Wikipedia because it often has too much irrelevant bs intermingled in what I want to know.

As for research skills, yeah, because it takes a genius to have enough common sense figure out where you can get research info...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users