Many collages fail papers with Wiki references and here is a prime example. The Wiki page on global Warming buys into the nay-sayers nonsense that oil companies paid billions to successfully create.
Look on the back page and see wing nuts in charge squelch REAL scientists and how they "lock" the page to shut down any opinion that might make a point.
Yet wiki is great for music or celeb lookups
friendofbear: Many collages fail papers with Wiki references and here is
As others have said, Wikipedia is a great place to start research on a subject, but it shouldn't be the final word. It's a wonderful tool and if you don't think it is accurate enough, get involved and try to make it better.
Hawthorne: As others have said, Wikipedia is a great place to
The 20% inaccurate statistic makes me nervous. It's a great place to start research (as other folks say), but I always tell students to look elsewhere to confirm the truth of what they read. http://livewithflair.blogspot.com/
LivewithFlair: The 20% inaccurate statistic makes me nervous. It's a great
Without more information, that "80% accuracy" stat is meaningless. 80% of what? 20% of articles are in error? Wikipedia articles contain more errors, as a function of word count? Are the errors systematic, or do the occur more in biographical entries, for example?
In some fields: physics, chemistry, etc., Wikipedia far excels in quantity and quality the information found in the standard encyclopedias.
jcabraham: Without more information, that "80% accuracy" stat is meaningless. 80%
It’s not Wiki’s fault people are misusing it. Anyone who cites “Wikipedia” in a paper is using it incorrectly. Good Wiki entries have citations. Open the link to the original source and cite THAT as a reference, not Wiki.
As for the inaccuracies, those are largely statements which are not referenced. Tell your students, or your kids, or whomever, to refrain from using statements that are not cited.
Problems with using Wiki in an academic environment arise from people misusing this resource. There are a lot of Wikipedia haters out there. I really don’t know why. Don’t blame a cool internet resource. Blame the students who don’t know how to use it and the teachers that don’t teach them this.
niko73: It’s not Wiki’s fault people are misusing it. Anyone who
I think they meant contributors. I've found errors, and it was a pain in the noggin to sign up to edit and correct them. It's on my list of a million things to do.
Cindy_Fogle: I think they meant contributors. I've found errors, and it
It's very difficult making a Wikipedia article accurate if the topic is even slightly controversial. The problem is that it's amazingly easy to just make things up and insert them into an article one after another, often with bogus references. However, it's extremely difficult to trace back all the references and verify that the additions are inaccurate. Then, when you finally make the correction, the original editor just makes up something new or re-inserts the original misinformation. When you finally give up and contact the administrators, they tell you that it's your responsibility to resolve the problem. Of course, that's what you've been trying to do for months.
dtcarson: It's very difficult making a Wikipedia article accurate if the
"There is no censorship on Wikipedia, but" ... true, very true. How do I know? There is an article about censorship there. It doesn't mention Wikipedia. If there was censorship on Wikipedia, then the article would surely mention it. It doesn't. Therefore there is no censorship on Wikipedia, QED.
One other surprising fact: Wikipedia is the biggest fast food franchise chain in the world, bigger than McDonalds, Burger King and KFC combined. Don't believe me? Look it up!
MTGradwell: "There is no censorship on Wikipedia, but" ... true, very
There is plenty of censorship on wikipedia. Just try to add inconvenient facts about a controversial subject, with multiple citations. The editors, who are usually advocates of the topic one way or another, will simply cite "POV" and delete it.
When is comes to topics that are not grounded in unquestionable science (water is comprised of H2O), it is a cesspool of bias and mini-fiefdoms jealously guarded by people who are obsessed with the topic and will brook no dissent or embarrassing facts.
sycodon: There is plenty of censorship on wikipedia. Just try to
The comparison with traditional encyclopedias is unfair.
For one, why would a traditional encyclopedia have any errors at all?
Two, wiki has constant updates as things happen unlike traditional encyclopedia and so articles are constantly updated. This is great but it also leads to mistakes at any point in time do to information moving slowly.
Three, traditional encyclopedias do not have as much information as exists on wikipedia by the number of pages AS WELL as in the size of articles.
Four, many wikipedia articles are important but will never be found in any self-respecting publication. There are far more specific articles than a traditional encyclopedia could allow for.
So yes, traditional encyclopedias can be more accurate but only because they use knowledge from the past and are far more general in their focus.
maxben: The comparison with traditional encyclopedias is unfair. For one, why
Everything will have errors. Some are do to keying in the information. Some are do to misinterpreting data. Some are due to erroneous source material.
"Three, traditional encyclopedias do not have as much information as exists on wikipedia by the number of pages AS WELL as in the size of articles."
"Four, many wikipedia articles are important but will never be found in any self-respecting publication. There are far more specific articles than a traditional encyclopedia could allow for."
Who gives a doodle? As I often stress to the people I engage in relations with, size is not everything.
But even acknowledging what you write I really question the validity of the claim. Wikipedia is basically a popularity contest. The article titled "List of Middle-earth weapons and armour" is longer than the article about stringrays (the animal). There is more written on the TV "Lost" than on George Washington (just the base page on the series, not even including every separate episode write up). I wish I could be assed to come up with better examples, but I do not feel like it.
thereisonlyoneparty: Everything will have errors. Some are do to keying in
I love Wikipedia.
I love just skimming through, hopping from one subject to another.
I'm glad I live in the real world and not the snotty high brow do-nothing self-important world of 'Academia'.
I realize some of the information might be incorrect or vandalized, so if it's important information, I'll follow through the sources to check it out further.
I you want to learn some science, it's a great place to start.
GetoffMylawn: I love Wikipedia. I love just skimming through, hopping from
cool, a couple of interesting things in this infographic. even if it only scores a B- as far as accuracy, its an A+ as far as internet relevancy and usefulness.
aphextwin07: cool, a couple of interesting things in this infographic. even
While not "academically" definitive, Wikipedia provides a quick survey and can help direct you to more definitive sources. Most of the vandalism and inaccuracy is on topics that tend to be political or controversial; for most other items it is very good. A great net resource.
aaronburr: While not "academically" definitive, Wikipedia provides a quick survey and
Someone wrote in the article titled "Damocles" (the guy with the sword over him) that he could be differentiated from his brother, "Hamocles", by his lack of a hat.
I found it hilarious because it was so unexpected. Little tidbits like that can be found all over wikipedia.
thereisonlyoneparty: Or just funny. Someone wrote in the article titled "Damocles"
Look on the back page and see wing nuts in charge squelch REAL scientists and how they "lock" the page to shut down any opinion that might make a point.
Yet wiki is great for music or celeb lookups
In some fields: physics, chemistry, etc., Wikipedia far excels in quantity and quality the information found in the standard encyclopedias.
As for the inaccuracies, those are largely statements which are not referenced. Tell your students, or your kids, or whomever, to refrain from using statements that are not cited.
Problems with using Wiki in an academic environment arise from people misusing this resource. There are a lot of Wikipedia haters out there. I really don’t know why. Don’t blame a cool internet resource. Blame the students who don’t know how to use it and the teachers that don’t teach them this.
Still, 20% is inaccurate and the big question is, which 20%?
One fact in five being in error makes this a bad source for information. It's can't be trusted or relied upon.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
One other surprising fact: Wikipedia is the biggest fast food franchise chain in the world, bigger than McDonalds, Burger King and KFC combined. Don't believe me? Look it up!
When is comes to topics that are not grounded in unquestionable science (water is comprised of H2O), it is a cesspool of bias and mini-fiefdoms jealously guarded by people who are obsessed with the topic and will brook no dissent or embarrassing facts.
For one, why would a traditional encyclopedia have any errors at all?
Two, wiki has constant updates as things happen unlike traditional encyclopedia and so articles are constantly updated. This is great but it also leads to mistakes at any point in time do to information moving slowly.
Three, traditional encyclopedias do not have as much information as exists on wikipedia by the number of pages AS WELL as in the size of articles.
Four, many wikipedia articles are important but will never be found in any self-respecting publication. There are far more specific articles than a traditional encyclopedia could allow for.
So yes, traditional encyclopedias can be more accurate but only because they use knowledge from the past and are far more general in their focus.
"Three, traditional encyclopedias do not have as much information as exists on wikipedia by the number of pages AS WELL as in the size of articles."
"Four, many wikipedia articles are important but will never be found in any self-respecting publication. There are far more specific articles than a traditional encyclopedia could allow for."
Who gives a doodle? As I often stress to the people I engage in relations with, size is not everything.
But even acknowledging what you write I really question the validity of the claim. Wikipedia is basically a popularity contest. The article titled "List of Middle-earth weapons and armour" is longer than the article about stringrays (the animal). There is more written on the TV "Lost" than on George Washington (just the base page on the series, not even including every separate episode write up). I wish I could be assed to come up with better examples, but I do not feel like it.
I love just skimming through, hopping from one subject to another.
I'm glad I live in the real world and not the snotty high brow do-nothing self-important world of 'Academia'.
I realize some of the information might be incorrect or vandalized, so if it's important information, I'll follow through the sources to check it out further.
I you want to learn some science, it's a great place to start.
I only understand about 50% of what I read on 'em, but they're still mighty engrossing!
Someone wrote in the article titled "Damocles" (the guy with the sword over him) that he could be differentiated from his brother, "Hamocles", by his lack of a hat.
I found it hilarious because it was so unexpected. Little tidbits like that can be found all over wikipedia.