• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Does Wikipedia get an unfair press?

F

Fassa Albrecht

Feb 18, 2007
7,818
26
38
Tyneside, UK
#1
Seems to me like there's a lot of hate towards Wikipedia.

But for all that there ARE abuses (I'm not going to lie about that), there are a majority who contribute sensible, well-thought out articles and corrections to articles.

So, does Wikipedia actually DESERVE the bad press it gets?
 
#3
Wikipedia is a natural phenomenon of the information age. People gave libraries and books bad press back in the day. Just cause some educational nazis want to shut something down for bad info that gets doesn't negate it's worth

I have seen bad info everywhere, in every text book, but I have to use those and not wikipedia when I cite my sources. I put in a works cited once (and I'm not joking): "This information is out on the internet and easily accessible. if you're too lazy to find it yourself, tell me, and I'll just be too lazy to write papers."

Needless to say, that didn't go over very well.
 
#4
bongomania said:
About as much as Youtube deserves the bad press it gets.
Click to expand...


DMVOO2VQWZFBQG5ND4AWZ2SPZWORZQJB.jpg
 
#5
Wikipedia is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest resource on the internet.

Notice the last part: the internet. It needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Never trust one resource, do thorough research.

My college speaks down on Wikipedia but I've found it to be just as accurate, if not MORE accurate than some of the professional journalism I've read lately. I've seen some major articles with misinformed statements.
 
#6
I really, really like Wikipedia. I wouldn't use it as my only source of information for something I was researching, but I wouldn't do that with any other source either. As far as just wanting to look something up out of curiosity, it's wonderful.

Something I've done before for professors who won't let me use it as a source for a paper: A lot of the articles have sources cited at the bottom, so if I want to use a bit of information from Wikipedia, I just credit the source that bit was credited to in the Wikipedia article, or if the sources are available online I'll use Wikipedia to help me find additional sources for the paper.
 
#7
The well-written articles have many great sources. If I'm searching on something I'm not familiar with, it's great because I get the general idea from Wikipedia, and then move on to the more complex references.
 
#8
tplyons said:
Wikipedia is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest resource on the internet.

Notice the last part: the internet. It needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Never trust one resource, do thorough research.

My college speaks down on Wikipedia but I've found it to be just as accurate, if not MORE accurate than some of the professional journalism I've read lately. I've seen some major articles with misinformed statements.
Click to expand...


+1 I've done a few searches in my area of expertise (statistics, experimental design) and found the definitions, articles, and explanations very good and virtually all accurate.

Your point of never totally trusting one resource is the key, whether that one resource is a person, a book, or Wikipedia.

It seems pretty good to me as either a quick source to check on other information, or a quick starting point to a more in-depth search of a topic.

IMO!
 
#11
#12
Bruce Lindfield said:
But nobody does serious study on a subject using any encyclopedia !! :eyebrow:
Click to expand...

Isn't that a separate issue?

It compounds the error by being so ubiquitous and easy - every google search throws up Wiki links - it's almost like a conspiracy...:hmm: ?
Click to expand...

Study methodology is a different issue from the availability of a particular resource and its accuracy. You seem to be blaming Wikipedia for bad study habits. :eyebrow:
 
#13
If you get your info on teh interw3b, it's only valid for interw3b debates. A lot of the info is extremely biased and not particularly well researched. The info regarding politics is pretty sad. Then again, I believe in accuracy, not spins to get my point across. Still, it's funny when people try to attack my medical info when I have a fer real PhD and they graduated from Google University. ;)
 
#14
spade2you said:
Still, it's funny when people try to attack my medical info when I have a fer real PhD and they graduated from Google University. ;)
Click to expand...

Well this is the real point - so people wouldn't expect to question a surgeon performing an operation - but they are quite happy to think that having read about it on Wikipseudopoda, means they are suddenly qualified to comment on anything! :p
 
#15
Bruce Lindfield said:
Well this is the real point - so people wouldn't expect to question a surgeon performing an operation - but they are quite happy to think that having read about it on Wikipseudopoda, means they are suddenly qualified to comment on anything! :p
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I think the new age of web dwellers simply love to argue and it's seldom hard to find articles on the web that will express your own POV so you can win yet another debate on the net, as if it counted for anything.
 
#16
FWIW, I think they do. The idea that people use the internet to actually research stuff (espescially people) that contradict the "common knowledge" is frightening to those that propogate the nonsense that passes for information in a lot of places. I go there often, and almost every article has a warning saying something about the content if it is not footnoted and verified, if it seems to be prejudicial or needs clarification. If you use any one source for your info chances are you run the risk of getting bum scoop, but as a tool I think wiki gets a bad rap and I like it anyway.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back