Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Wikipedia: Useful or tool of the fake internet intellectual?

54 replies to this topic
WinterEdit
  • WinterEdit

    It was all just lying there!

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • Finland

#31

Posted 26 January 2014 - 07:07 AM

Wikipedia can contain accurate information. But the fact that everyone can contribute/change the text within an article (if it's not protected so that only people who have signed in can edit it; some articles are) makes it not that reliable.

 

Although, I do go there without thinking about "hmm i wonder if this is valid info" and just read it instead.

 

So... Wikipedia is an useful tool. I don't think that any false information is that abundant in there. But it can exist and come at any time, so there should be a little bit of cautiousness when reading an article. By searching it from Google and reading about it on some other site, it would be the best option, I guess.


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#32

Posted 26 January 2014 - 08:27 AM Edited by F4L?, 26 January 2014 - 08:28 AM.

Okay, a test. I made some amusing (to me) and very obvious edits in the first two paragraphs of this article on Gazelles, I screencapped it.
Let us know if you see it and it looks normal, and we can gain a time frame on how long a fake edit can last.

Also I changed it's genus on the right to 'Gangsta'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazelle

  • El Diablo, GTA_stu and Lil ski like this

WinterEdit
  • WinterEdit

    It was all just lying there!

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • Finland

#33

Posted 26 January 2014 - 08:53 AM

Okay, a test. I made some amusing (to me) and very obvious edits in the first two paragraphs of this article on Gazelles, I screencapped it.
Let us know if you see it and it looks normal, and we can gain a time frame on how long a fake edit can last.

Also I changed it's genus on the right to 'Gangsta'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazelle

"A GangstaAss Gazelle is any of the many antelope species in the genus BlackAss Gazella."

 

Legen...

... wait for it...

dary.

  • Finn 7 five 11 likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

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

#34

Posted 26 January 2014 - 10:01 AM

I changed it's genus on the right to 'Gangsta'

F*CK YEAH, SON.

 

WRECK THE SYSTEM.

 

7%20anarchy.png

  • Finn 7 five 11, na89340qv0n34b09q340, sivispacem and 1 other like this

ExtremoMania
  • ExtremoMania

    Just a dose of metal everyday

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2012
  • Philippines

#35

Posted 26 January 2014 - 10:55 AM

Some of my colleagues never recommend me of the site despite somewhat daily use of it. It's not something I could use everyday though it's a great tool if you want something to get out of it only when it's needed. However I would never use it somewhat on research-based writing since my teachers never recommend and also an added note that it has some sources also taken from other books and websites but some of them turns out to be incorrect. Be careful with that.


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#36

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:19 AM

 

I changed it's genus on the right to 'Gangsta'

F*CK YEAH, SON.

 

WRECK THE SYSTEM.

 

7%20anarchy.png

 

Well it's back to normal now.
I suspect it may have been someone here that did it.

Haha had to have some fun to test its credibility, took two hours.


WinterEdit
  • WinterEdit

    It was all just lying there!

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • Finland

#37

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:29 AM Edited by WinterEdit, 26 January 2014 - 11:29 AM.

 

 

I changed it's genus on the right to 'Gangsta'

F*CK YEAH, SON.

 

WRECK THE SYSTEM.

 

7%20anarchy.png

 

Well it's back to normal now.
I suspect it may have been someone here that did it.

Haha had to have some fun to test its credibility, took two hours.

 

Looking at the view/edit history, it was someone named Nthep. :p

 

6yFh8.png


Shyabang Shyabang
  • Shyabang Shyabang

    Wild Thing

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2011

#38

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:01 PM

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

You're very lucky. As the younger generation become the teachers, more students will get caught for using wikipedia. Most of the current  teachers are amongst the generation who grew up without wikipedia. I think they still don't use wikipedia much.


trip
  • trip

    ~

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2007
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [Gen Chat]

#39

Posted 26 January 2014 - 05:31 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?

 

 

Yes, I enjoyed discussions a lot more before the days of wiki.  Trivia was a sport and not just a question being answered within seconds.   It could take days of calling family and friends(and them reaching out in their circles too) before you could get the answers to such nagging questions like "What was the actor's name who played Wojohowitz on the Barney Miller Show".

 

 

Side note:

I was raised by a lady (my mother) who has many degrees in Library Sciences and Research Studies.

  • theadmiral likes this

JustOneMonth
  • JustOneMonth

    Griefer? Better Call Saul!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2013
  • Brazil

#40

Posted 26 January 2014 - 09:51 PM Edited by JustOneMonth, 26 January 2014 - 09:54 PM.

Both, more of a usefull hub of information.

I like the parody of it, uncyclopedia. Any wikia will have some bad articles anyways but i've only found one of those ''funny'' informations on wikipedia. It is the last site i visit for any research but it can be usefull. Uncyclopedia makes me laugh, EDramatica is too forced and full of porn, also reminds me of an extended version of angry /b/ comments on things.

  • na89340qv0n34b09q340 likes this

ten-a-penny
  • ten-a-penny

    #DoomFan4EverAfter

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Libya

#41

Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:35 PM

Wikipedia? perfectly yes. [enter something here] Wikia? HELL NO!

I remember reading somewhere in Ace Combat Wikia. that Blaze (main/playable character) "married" Edge/Kei Nagase. saw it on random. next time I returned, I haven't found it again :(


Black & White
  • Black & White

    Homie

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

#42

Posted 04 February 2014 - 07:30 PM

Wikipedia can contain accurate information. But the fact that everyone can contribute/change the text within an article (if it's not protected so that only people who have signed in can edit it; some articles are) makes it not that reliable.

 

All articles are protected. Say for example that you edit an article, well several moderators will be informed. I'm not sure if moderators automatically receive notifications. Articles fall into categories. About 10 or more moderators are always checking the categories. If one article is edited, the article will rise to the top of the category and it will be thoroughly checked through.


Lil ski
  • Lil ski

    Hawai'i 5-O

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2012

#43

Posted 04 February 2014 - 07:42 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. 


I see that a lot of times on yahooanswers. Someone ask a question about somthing and the "top answer" is someone who just copy pasta the first paragraph of a wiki article and you know the Asnwerer didn't read it thoroughly because it had jack sh*t to do with what the person was asking. If you know answer on somthing, write it in your own damn words. don't be lazy and give me a wiki article especially if you didn't bother to read it.

RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Helpfulness Award
    April Fools Winner 2015

#44

Posted 04 February 2014 - 09:07 PM

The main points people bring up is that anyone can edit it. Aside from the fact this is what made it so great in the first place, there are lots of people who either look at recent changes or get notified to changes. Aside from the fact bots can snap up lots of the vandalism, even on obscure pages subtle changes are reverted within a week or so. And remember, even if you don't trust the page then you can simply look at the sources. A nice little tip when researching something, use the sources at the bottom - and read them, as wikipedia will condense the information.

 

I believe the main problem with wikipedia is, as said, the bias. A majority of the editors are white males; and although they really do try their best to remain unbiased, it's telling when the history articles are 'richer' when they're about history relating to western culture, i.e. the kind of thing you learn in schools. This means non-western history is a lot less 'professionally' written, and sometimes there are articles created about minorly important things in, say, the culture of west Sudan, but the article is deleted because it's 'not important enough to be it's own article'. It's rare, but the very slight history and culture bias is still there.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

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

#45

Posted 04 February 2014 - 09:38 PM

I believe the main problem with wikipedia is, as said, the bias. A majority of the editors are white males; and although they really do try their best to remain unbiased, it's telling when the history articles are 'richer' when they're about history relating to western culture, i.e. the kind of thing you learn in schools. This means non-western history is a lot less 'professionally' written, and sometimes there are articles created about minorly important things in, say, the culture of west Sudan, but the article is deleted because it's 'not important enough to be it's own article'. It's rare, but the very slight history and culture bias is still there.

 

Can you call that a bias, though? If I write an article on the history of a certain western civilization, that doesn't mean I'm biased against eastern or African cultures/nations, that just means I might not know enough about it to make the article as 'rich' as the one I made about Ancient Greece. And I've never seen nor heard about an article being deleted if it contributes something new. 

  • iiGh0STt likes this

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

#46

Posted 05 February 2014 - 12:22 AM

 

I believe the main problem with wikipedia is, as said, the bias. A majority of the editors are white males; and although they really do try their best to remain unbiased, it's telling when the history articles are 'richer' when they're about history relating to western culture, i.e. the kind of thing you learn in schools. This means non-western history is a lot less 'professionally' written, and sometimes there are articles created about minorly important things in, say, the culture of west Sudan, but the article is deleted because it's 'not important enough to be it's own article'. It's rare, but the very slight history and culture bias is still there.

 

Can you call that a bias, though? If I write an article on the history of a certain western civilization, that doesn't mean I'm biased against eastern or African cultures/nations, that just means I might not know enough about it to make the article as 'rich' as the one I made about Ancient Greece. And I've never seen nor heard about an article being deleted if it contributes something new. 

 

It's also worth mentioning that articles in different languages are, well, different. If you're looking for an in depth history of Jeddah, you're probably going to get a more in depth and less western biased version in the Arabic language version.


iiGh0STt
  • iiGh0STt

    Gangsta

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2013
  • Ukraine

#47

Posted 06 March 2014 - 01:59 AM Edited by iiGh0STt, 06 March 2014 - 02:00 AM.

I like Wikipedia, but it is very easy to tell when someone has home schooled themselves via that website. I also believe that they provide very useful information, and more factual than fictional. Maybe when the website was just released and anyone could submit, it was not as reliable, but I have yet to find anything that is not referenced as a credible and professional source.


 

It's also worth mentioning that articles in different languages are, well, different. If you're looking for an in depth history of Jeddah, you're probably going to get a more in depth and less western biased version in the Arabic language version.

 

Obviously not all languages translate directly to perfect English.


Niobium
  • Niobium

    Johnny the Commie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#48

Posted 06 March 2014 - 02:43 AM

Wikipedia is actually good. It's good for references, and to get quick facts
  • iiGh0STt likes this

SWEETSAPRIK
  • SWEETSAPRIK

    Pяopagaиda Iиc.

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2004
  • Unknown
  • Sourest Member

#49

Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:00 AM

I like wikipedia overall.

 

That said, people who don't have knowledge on a subject and run straight to it are the ones it does the most damage to. People like that who don't have enough knowledge on a subject, or enough interest in said subject to further educate themselves after that are the types most likely to read a wiki page on something, assume most or all of it is true, remember those "facts" and never bother reading further or learning anything else about it. I also think it used to be more useful than it is now. On the one hand there is much more there now than there used to be. On the other hand that also means there is more incorrect information there. Not to mention there are types there now that engage in edit wars, revert everything, etc. Just about any subject that can have a slant, or be biased to one side or another, will tend to be. People will sometimes revert edits that merely fixed obviously incorrect information (I mean obvious vandalism) for no good reason, even after leaving the vandalism for ages. Pages that aren't of interest to most can go the longest without being fixed. Some subjects seems to have "experts" there in charge of watching certain things, and sometimes those "experts" are the ones with a clear bias.

 

I think it is a great idea, but like most great ideas it runs into problems the second people get involved. But yeah, as long as you know not to blindly trust anything you find their, and don't use it as your only resource, it is great.

  • iiGh0STt likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#50

Posted 06 March 2014 - 04:32 AM

Obviously Wikipedia isn't a fountain of specialised knowledge. But it's an encyclopaedia, it isn't supposed to be. But you get the general overview of the topic and a broad range of opinions on it. And some of the longer articles actually do contain quite a bit of information.


iiGh0STt
  • iiGh0STt

    Gangsta

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2013
  • Ukraine

#51

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:47 AM Edited by iiGh0STt, 06 March 2014 - 08:47 AM.

education and the internet... 2 things that might benefit someone even more if they were never combined.

online classes for college you say? lol... no.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#52

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:07 AM

It's far better than a second-year general arts major on a know-it-all bender, for sure. I'd be interested in who you're taking issue with, though, admiral - someone in particular, or just an assumption about a few of of us?

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#53

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:12 AM

As far as I can remember, we weren't allowed to use wikipedia as source in secondary school.

 

In elementary school it was ok to use wikipedia to give a presentation about that your cat has four legs, but after that it basically got banned.

 

I only use it to look up who certain famous people are/were.


na89340qv0n34b09q340
  • na89340qv0n34b09q340

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • Saint-Martin

#54

Posted 06 March 2014 - 12:05 PM

It's nice for checking yourself before you wreck yourself accidentally say something stupid about a topic you're not fresh on (doesn't prevent it tho :/). And it provided entertainment for me in a couple school computer classes where all of the websites were blocked unless they were on a white list.

 

So I like Wikipedia. :)


Cyper
  • Cyper

    Liberty City Lover Since 2001

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2008
  • None

#55

Posted 07 March 2014 - 02:10 PM

Wikipedia is good, but one has to realize first off, its an open source, meaning anyone can edit it. Secondly, if you get your information from Wikipedia then you're just looking at surface level of things.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users