Wiki is begging for funds!

[missmanners]

I even find myself going to wiki for information because it's so much easier than combing thru the 50 spyware and ad infested websites google gives me.

But more and more I see people quoting wiki as a soure. Is wiki part of the larger conspiracy to rewrite history? Because eventually the source websites for the wiki articles are going to vanish and everyone will just accept that it's factual if it's in wiki.


mm

 

[Donovan]

I think it's just that Wiki is the easiest and quickest way to get pseudo information. People are basically lazy when it comes to research, and like you said Google results can be iffy.. Most professorial types I know won't accept Wiki as a legit source just because of the uncontrolled aspect of adding information.

Wiki will just become part of the misinformation age like all the rest of these "really real news sources" we live with now. Hell, we still live in a country where half the people think Saddam Hussein started 9-11. Wiki's probably the least of our problems...

 

[missmanners]

Sure, but right NOW Wiki usually has a decent amount of real sources listed for "articles". It's not that much different than when I had to write research papers on something I'd find in a scientific journal. I'd throw the sources listed in as MY sources. I just wonder how long they'll last.


mm

 

[Donovan]

When I was doing research on a local legend last year, I started with Wiki and other online stuff, but then worked my way backward through the sources and the years until I started to get a wholly different picture of the guy I was researching. It was pretty extreme in his case, but basically every current modern reference had originated from the same ten page chapter in another person's autobiography, and each successive author had simply borrowed from the borrower before them, until the modern image of this guy was nothing like the original story.

So I guess lazy research is nothing new. I will say that I see a positive trend online, not with stuff like Wiki yet but with online libraries like google books. As more and more old sources are being recorded online, the available source material is getting more and more accurate and I was able to find tons of original material without trekking to libraries all over the place.

So maybe that will counter the effect you're talking about...

 

[Conchaga]

If Stephen Colbert can incite a Wiki editing riot over elephants, you should always take wiki info lightly.

 

[Blindgroping]

I've finally found a number of college instructors that do NOT allow Wiki as a valid source of citable material. the contents can be changed by USERS!

I like it because it's usually correct and is very thorough.
more for curiosity and filling the gaps in a conversation (mugen, Ezra Pound, discographies of a favorite band...).

But, it is not 100% accurate.

If I'm doing a research paper, I look at wiki, but find other sources to cite.

 

[Weevil]

Fuck that intelligence agency mouthpiece.

 

[Friday]

I use Wiki if I come across something I've never heard before, or if I want to flesh out something I know extremely little about. Basically it's just a starting point for me. If I want actual information, I always dig deeper.

 

[classichummus]

I enjoy it for math and science. It has great explanations of all sorts of areas of math. It is great for just wanting to learn stuff for fun. I wouldn't source it, but I would use it for help on math or science homework if necessary, because at least with math, I can prove it's correct.

 

[Blindgroping]

Friday:
Yes that's what I meant.

Hummus: And philosophy