Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Wikipedia Woes

  1. #11
    wells theres a few things about the wikipedia

    when u read the article, its not a professional so u no its gonna b biased, but live with it, its peer information, which is even tho not alwayz the true, its wat society kinda feels or thinks, which is good to look into, n its also good to look into why they feel that way cuz then ull know even more about the topic (im prolly more interested in this part of it cuz im a sociology major at ucla so I realize things like this as social phoenominon that is interesting that someone bsing)

    but also, i agree that there should be atleast a valid email adress. It would limit the amount of spam users purposely destroying articles

    but lastly

    if there is a biased article

    or anything that is not cited


    u can spot it


    then they will put a notice at the top that it is a biased article

    that will help the community then some1 else can help fix it up


    so, it does have some downfaults, but because someone can ask for a citation, it lets other readers notice what facts are really juz pulled out of someones ass, n all the other stuff, if its cited, juz follow the link and c where it goes, its interesting because sometimes some really bull **** information seems to be sighted from 5 or 6 websites that look almost credible

  2. #12
    Member Rodwen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    24
    Hmm, I dunno about all this wikipedia bashing. Anyone with a brain that's doing research knows never to take the word of a single source. It's not hard to cross-reference what you're reading with other sources - and when you do, you find most stuff is actually quite reliable.

    For every fifty-six moron spammers there's someone who takes wiki very seriously[citation needed ] and edits out any mistakes very soon after they arrive. Of course, it's up to the people with knowledge in the area of the article to fix it - and I guess that means if you use wiki, give a little back and check out the reliability of the things you know about for sure.

    Basically, I think it's just an uber idea. You can get the dry information from other dusty encylopaedias, bury yourself in layers of smartly dressed internet sites from respectable societies ... and then you can read wiki, laugh a bit, and know that it's always going to be influenced by actual human beings who have a passion for what they're writing about and no reason to write it.

    Fun, yes?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube