|
On the validity of Wikipedia: Consensus by show of hands. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Omega_M |
| Read wiki for information. Trust the content only if it is referenced and you cross check the references. Again, the references should ideally be peer-reviewed publications and such. Simple as that. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
How about next time we're arguing, instead of me quoting you the same information from Wikipedia, I'll just give you the page number and author of whatEver the book / documentation about it and you can have fun reading/getting it for yourself. Why should I waste my time entertaining you when it doesnt really matter? You are just pissed off that Wikipedia has shot holes in your stories so much. Its the same information, I know what I quote. Surely there's mistakes and incorrect information on Wikipedia - but same things can be said about books and scientists who are biased or wrong in their judgements - you cant just say PH.D's are always right and encyclopedias are often wrong. There's PH.D's on both sides of many conflicts, so what??? |
It's funny that you turned this into an argument about you :wtf: Read what i posted, im worried about journalists and other 'serious' publications that feed information to millions of people using it. You think the average news reader is going to cross check references? For us, it is acceptable to use it for some things because we have the know-how of checking more in depth information but if someones references it and its innacurate and millions see it, how can you correct that blunder? Information is power and intentional misinformation has it uses, but unintentional misinformation can be catastrophical. So please tone your ego down, this is not about you. I know you think you're very important and enlightened in your head, but let's keep that in your head.
Now for the last part of your argument, I trust people that are dedicated to the advancement of knowledge and are actively involved in the creation of knowledge over armchair scientists that have never stepped into a lab. It's a false analogy to compare conflict in Wikipedia where a 5 year old can 'contribute', to argumentation between PH.D's holding different opinions. The backing that the PH.D's have knowledge-wise when they advance an argument is much more solid than what most people that post on Wikipedia can claim. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
It's funny that you turned this into an argument about you :wtf: Read what i posted, im worried about journalists and other 'serious' publications that feed information to millions of people using it. You think the average news reader is going to cross check references? For us, it is acceptable to use it for some things because we have the know-how of checking more in depth information but if someones references it and its innacurate and millions see it, how can you correct that blunder? Information is power and intentional misinformation has it uses, but unintentional misinformation can be catastrophical. So please tone your ego down, this is not about you. I know you think you're very important and enlightened in your head, but let's keep that in your head.
Now for the last part of your argument, I trust people that are dedicated to the advancement of knowledge and are actively involved in the creation of knowledge over armchair scientists that have never stepped into a lab. It's a false analogy to compare conflict in Wikipedia where a 5 year old can 'contribute', to argumentation between PH.D's holding different opinions. The backing that the PH.D's have knowledge-wise when they advance an argument is much more solid than what most people that post on Wikipedia can claim. |
You're just jealous of Wikipedia. I already stated that there are PH.D's on both sides of most arguments. If only PH.D's were allowed to moderate and maintain Wikipedia, that website would be a piece of with a few million less pages of information. I mean, does PH.D have to be the main driving force behind acceptable and approval of factual information? Give me a break. There's something called common sense as well. Do you need a PH.D to tell you that Earth spins around the Sun, for example? If a 5-year-old adds something like that to Wikipedia, should that be considered as wrong information? Come on, man, get a grip on yourself here. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Read wiki for information. Trust the content only if it is referenced and you cross check the references. Again, the references should ideally be peer-reviewed publications and such. Simple as that. |
Well said. As with any sources, the reliability of information can and should be cross-referenced. And you can easily do this with the information posted at Wiki. Last I checked, any info. posted there has to have a reference citation (does it still?). It's not difficult to examine the reference for the merits of its content and validity (unless it is a book source and page number, which admittedly can be a bit more difficult).
Wiki has its uses, but like any cited source its merits stands and falls on the validity of the content cited, which should be cross-referenced if anyone deems it questionable. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
You're just jealous of Wikipedia. I already stated that there are PH.D's on both sides of most arguments. If only PH.D's were allowed to moderate and maintain Wikipedia, that website would be a piece of with a few million less pages of information. I mean, does PH.D have to be the main driving force behind acceptable and approval of factual information? Give me a break. There's something called common sense as well. Do you need a PH.D to tell you that Earth spins around the Sun, for example? If a 5-year-old adds something like that to Wikipedia, should that be considered as wrong information? Come on, man, get a grip on yourself here. |
Yes! In true magnetonium style you have completely bypassed my main argument and hung on to the edge of the napkin. Seriously what is wrong with you? Im not jealous of wikipedia, and i already stated it has it uses, such as getting initial information for research. I said my concern was this:
| quote: |
Read what i posted, im worried about journalists and other 'serious' publications that feed information to millions of people using it. You think the average news reader is going to cross check references? For us, it is acceptable to use it for some things because we have the know-how of checking more in depth information but if someones references it and its innacurate and millions see it, how can you correct that blunder? Information is power and intentional misinformation has it uses, but unintentional misinformation can be catastrophical. |
Now either address my argument or don't reply to my posts. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Yes! In true magnetonium style you have completely bypassed my main argument and hung on to the edge of the napkin. Seriously what is wrong with you? Im not jealous of wikipedia, and i already stated it has it uses, such as getting initial information for research. I said my concern was this:
Now either address my argument or don't reply to my posts. |
I am not only addressing your point, but making my own statement - this thread is not only about you. Basically Wikipedia has validity, but people shouldn't take every word of it as fact, thats dumb of course. On numerous ocassions I checked the information that I read on Wikipedia, but for most part I am very satisfied. Like I said, I'll try to quote pages and authors of books and publications at hand next time to make you happy when arguing you. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I am not only addressing your point, but making my own statement - this thread is not only about you. Basically Wikipedia has validity, but people shouldn't take every word of it as fact, thats dumb of course. On numerous ocassions I checked the information that I read on Wikipedia, but for most part I am very satisfied. Like I said, I'll try to quote pages and authors of books and publications at hand next time to make you happy when arguing you. |
Nevermind dude, I don't if i have to highlight what my point is. What you said is already present in my first post. Now the problem is with the use of wikipedia by the media at large without checking for accuracy. So my problem is the blind trust some people that have influence on what millions of people read have with wikipedia, and how this could affect the flow of information. That is my concern. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
It's funny that you turned this into an argument about you :wtf: |
LOL, no offense Mag, but that is f'n hillarious.  |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| Think of Wiki as a superior index with general references. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Here's today's example of how useful Wikipedia is, not requiring PH.D references, etc. I am studying for an important computer test today, and quickly found appropriate response to some information, for example, on parity bits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_bit
OH, WAIT ... ITS NOT REFERENCED, NOT A PH.D ... noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ... there's only one weird link to Google users forums thing .... noooooooo .... the information is wrong, its a conspiracy, lies, cant trust it :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Here's today's example of how useful Wikipedia is, not requiring PH.D references, etc. I am studying for an important computer test today, and quickly found appropriate response to some information, for example, on parity bits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_bit
OH, WAIT ... ITS NOT REFERENCED, NOT A PH.D ... noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ... there's only one weird link to Google users forums thing .... noooooooo .... the information is wrong, its a conspiracy, lies, cant trust it :rolleyes: |
Yes, but there is no debating a known fact...
Maybe a better example? |
|
|
|
|
