Jump to content

Wikipedia to be more trustworthy


Recommended Posts

as Psychosis said, your best bet is to go to the sources listed at the bottom of a wikipedia page and draw your conclusions from that.

Use wikipedia as one of the avenues to do research, but don't steal or quote from wikipedia directly. Even with their new system, colleges and schools will still refuse to accept its credibility in most cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wikipedia is implementing a system to color code the reliability of edits made to documents. Now I can tell my teachers to STFU about Wikipedia not being a "credible source." It's hardly ever my only reference in the first place.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/

They fear what they don't understand

THE INTERWEBS!

I'm a realist, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here since most of my college teachers are old enough to have invented the printing press, if it's digital, they'll find something retarded to scrutizine about this. I've won debates countless times with teachers. It seems like they just don't know how wikipedia works at all, and it appears they are just afraid of MLB standards so much that they should check their granny panty's for poop streaks.

</rant>

Link to post
Share on other sites
as Psychosis said, your best bet is to go to the sources listed at the bottom of a wikipedia page and draw your conclusions from that.

Use wikipedia as one of the avenues to do research, but don't steal or quote from wikipedia directly. Even with their new system, colleges and schools will still refuse to accept its credibility in most cases.

And this is EXACTLY what I constantly bring up in the debates. I propose that cited resources and the wikipedia page is just a collective web site informational D-A-T-A-B-A-S-E

If I can list enough sources for a reference, why does it matter if it came from google OR wikipedia?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem I have with Wikipedia is that it ends up being self referencing. People go there and get information but don't distinguish between what is backed up with a reference and what isn't. They then publish this information in their own public reports/articles which someone later uses as a reference to back up what was originally in wikipedia. This isn't a good way to keep the information acurate, it would be far better in my opinion if any information without a reference wasn't publicly available on wikipedia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is just like the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. "...though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it was always reality that's got it wrong."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...