Wikipedia

Fla._Deadheader · January 31, 2008, 01:13:24 PM

Exactly what IS this Wikipedia ???

How was it originated ???

Furby · January 31, 2008, 01:16:38 PM

Here's the Wikipedia on Wikipedia. ;D
Scroll down for the history.
Wikipedia

Fla._Deadheader · January 31, 2008, 01:26:26 PM

Exactly what I thought. :

:

Stuff written and edited by volunteers ??? :

:

Where is the TRUTH about all this stuff ???

What is to prevent someone from editing out accurate info, and, substituting their own beliefs, and everyone quotes this, like it's Einsteins Notepad :

:

I say ---To quote Sherman Potter-- "HORSEHOCKEY" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Furby · January 31, 2008, 01:33:06 PM

How is it really any different than any other pubilcation or website ever done?
Every thing written is based on the writer's knowledge or interpretation.
You never really have any confirmation that a writer knows what they are writing about really.

I agree with you anyone can write anything there, but they do everywhere.

tonich · January 31, 2008, 01:46:10 PM

Quote from: Fla._Deadheader on January 31, 2008, 01:26:26 PM
...and everyone quotes this, like it's Einsteins Notepad : : : : : :

Ha-ha!
Guess I know what raised this. :D :D :D ;)

Fla._Deadheader · January 31, 2008, 02:01:24 PM

I'm just curious how something like this can be taken as the "Holy Grail " :

:

Sprucegum · January 31, 2008, 03:01:29 PM

Our local schools do not allow the use of quotations or references from Wikipedia on the grounds that they may not be true facts.

Tom · January 31, 2008, 03:05:18 PM

Where do you go to find true facts, the newspaper? :D

I just read a highschool history book from the 1980's. It's stuff that was being taught the children and is full of the most social hogwash I've read anywhere.

Fla._Deadheader · January 31, 2008, 03:06:55 PM

I'm thinkin it's just like all these phony photos :

:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dan_Shade · January 31, 2008, 03:25:41 PM

I think wikipedia is a great source of information. But like all sources of information, you need to verify the facts, many good wikipedia articles have references noted at the bottom of them.

Of course some bogus info out there, but you get bogus info down at the local tavern too....

A lot of "educators" don't like wikipedia because it breaks their stranglehold on information dispersion.

I would have a "spirited debate" with a teacher that didn't allow my child to use verified information.

John Bartley · January 31, 2008, 03:41:48 PM

I agree with what Dan Shade says. Also, as the Wiki is a user supported reference and also is user edited, I would guess that there are a large number of users out there who are watching for and editing out any incorrect or "spam" entries. If you take a look at the history page of an entry, you can track the entries and corrections. It's amazing how quickly the deliberate attempts to pervert the Wiki get edited out.

Would I trust it 100%?? Not a chance ... but I would trust it just as much as I trust any unverified fact from any poster, on any web forum. I'm a big boy, and I try to think for myself.

Also, having been through the education system, I can attest to the amount of political persuasion that happens there ... at least with the Wiki, if I don't agree with the stated fact, I could correct it without putting my grades in jeopardy. (if was still in school ... which I'm not)

Bottom line .... it's a darn good reference and draws on a globe of information

cheers eh

beenthere · January 31, 2008, 03:47:25 PM

I was doubtful of Wikepedia at first, but now I use it as a source of good reminders of what a word or subject will drag up...from whomever wants to throw it out there. Then, I can go further into the subject if more factual resource information is of interest.

I'm sure, as Tom pointed out, that there are teachers who have picked subject material slanted to their beliefs, and for sure do not want their pupils to find information that contradicts their viewpoint. However, all teachers are not that way, and they are the better ones, IMO.

But, I often look at Wikepedia, when I see it is listed with a Google search....just to check it out. It is one of the things I find facinating about the internet...lots of info available to ponder. I don't have to believe it all...I'm too opinionated to do that... :D :D :D

(?? Bogus info at the Tavern?? I'll have to reconsider going to the Roxbury Tavern tomorrow noon, if that is a remote possibility of getting "bogus" info there.... :D :D :D )

Fla._Deadheader · January 31, 2008, 03:55:45 PM

Why I brought this up, History is being re-written. Schools don't teach what us Old timers were taught.

I'm constantly amazed at the lack of learning of students, about simple civics, Math, History. The "Island" of Costa Rica. Things like this.

I just can't believe that all the hype about "Wikipedia says", is really that authoritative as a source ???

Course, I'm a cynic , anyways ??? :

:

;D ;D

Dan_Shade · January 31, 2008, 04:04:36 PM

go on over there and poke around some, Harold, i'm sure that you'll be pleasantly surprised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_rica

any really bad info in there?

beenthere · January 31, 2008, 04:17:27 PM

FDH
Now you know...

Fla._Deadheader · January 31, 2008, 06:52:51 PM

Quoteany really bad info in there?

How would I know ??? I never wrote it, or know anyone that did. ??? ??? ;D ;D

I am more leaning toward, when someone quotes Wikipedia, and spouts off like that's the ultimate word on a conversation.

Dan_Shade · January 31, 2008, 06:59:40 PM

oh, but that's not wikipedia's fault!

Fla._Deadheader · January 31, 2008, 08:27:23 PM

Never said it was ??? Just can't believe everything you read, right ??? ;D ;D

Dan_Shade · January 31, 2008, 08:46:23 PM

yep, that's what seperates wise men from fools.

SwampDonkey · January 31, 2008, 10:59:17 PM

I've quoted some stuff from there, but a lot of stuff in there is quoted from outside Wikipedia to. Like for example if you do a search on a movie in Google you'll find that about every site is quoting the Internet Movie Database word for word. The only independent reviewed posts are written my outside viewers, but the preamble before those reviews is always quoted. For all I know, that preamble is written my the movie studio, similar to what you read off the back of the DVD box.

If you look at a lot of the dendro and plant stuff in there is goes back to USFS sources, similar for other subjects. Just look at the sources of the articles. Some stuff I can tell if it's hogwash, it's not sourced and Wiki usually puts up a marker saying if it is confirmed info.

Sprucegum · February 01, 2008, 09:57:09 AM

If you really need to verify the truth of any given information - post it on the 8) FF :P

We know the real truth about everything!

asy · February 01, 2008, 01:40:44 PM

I love wikipedia.

It's a fabulous 'first port of call' for information, which, obviously, like anything anywhere else, needs to be verified.

I've written stuff to there myself on occasion.

The thing I like best about the wiki system is that if you read it, and you believe there's some error on the page, whether factual or simply grammatical, you have the opportunity to alter it. If you want to add to it, you can, delete from it you can, etc. It's dynamic. Of course all changes are double checked to make sure they aren't simply spurious, but having said that, so long as the system is run in perpetuity the way it is now I think it's just fine.

Definatly a case of "Caveat Emptor", but one of the best information sources on the net IMHO.

As an example, please have a look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry
Particulary have a look at the 'external links' section. ;)
Enjoy!

asy :D