The Source Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Wikipedia. Trust or Not Trust? A conversation came up in another thread, which I thought it needed to be expressed. From time to time, I see people using the Wikipedia site as the bible truth to everything. In the past, on several sites including this one, there were heavy debates on the legit nature of Wikipedia. I personally don't see anything legit about Wikipedia. From my perspective, the nature of the site is a big blog. Anyone can change the information at any moment, and they could invent things up. Unlike the Encyclopedia, which the information if regulated, Wikipedia is altered by a variety of visitors. What do you think? Wikipedia, Trust or Not Trust? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthOxyClean Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I voted Trust. I think that you can trust Wiki, but only if you can tell the difference between the false info and the true info. Wiki can be trusted, but to a short extent. A bible, Wikipedia is not. A resource for general info, Wikipedia is. I would advise this: Instead of getting info on the Net, go buy the book/game/movie. It is a incredibly rewarding experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I think it's a useful starting point if you want some quick info since basic facts are generally correct. However, if I were doing a research paper, I wouldn't cite it as a source. Some of the articles are written from a very slanted or biased viewpoint or have mistakes, so it's not quite as credible as, say, something in a peer-reviewed journal article. I use it, but I take some of the info with a grain of salt until I can double check it in other places if accuracy is important in that particular situation. How's that for a qualified answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I suppose the cited content is just as legitimate as any other cited work. I wouldn't bet the farm on information found on wikipedia, if that's what you're asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego Varen Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I trust it, but I don't think Wikipedia is a Bible, just an Encyclopedia of anything. I found out many things about Star Wars and other things I'm in to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Depends on what you are searching. When it comes to Star Wars, I don't trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 People just have to remember to also look at the discussion and history tabs for the entry as well to get an idea of where the information came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSR Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 i do believe they may have got a bit of their information wrong on that one^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I suppose the cited content is just as legitimate as any other cited work. I wouldn't bet the farm on information found on wikipedia, if that's what you're asking. It's technically a source that can be cited, but not one I'd consider scholarly quality. @jmac--sure, they'll hit the shelves at 75mph, if the bakery truck they're riding in crashes through the window at that speed. It's all in the perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I trust, though I make sure to check my facts before I declare anything indisputable. The Wikipedia Format makes it easy to get an answer quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 @jmac--sure, they'll hit the shelves at 75mph, if the bakery truck they're riding in crashes through the window at that speed. It's all in the perspective.True, although it was put there (that screenshot wasn't my handiwork though) because of the "speed blur" around the loaves of bread in the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Wikipedia. Trust or Not Trust? (snip) What do you think? Wikipedia, Trust or Not Trust? Why? What would constitute a legit source of information? That's a matter of who you choose to trust, which is a subjective choice in itself. I trust it in general, but I don't trust it blindly. Very few sources are truly completely objective, since people have written the content. People have opinions, people can misunderstand, and people can be wrong, no matter how intelligent and knowledgeable. Not everything you can read in a regular encyclopedia is 100% accurate, and none are free from mistakes. They may have higher standards that a wiki, but mistakes slip through anyway. Wikipedia have a larger number of proof-readers than most encyclopedias do. The problem with encyclopedias is that they also tend to contain somewhat outdated information, in particular within fields which undergo rapid changes or fast development. Wikipedia is a fast, free source of information which is reasonably up-to-date. If you cross reference information found there with other sources you can verify to some extent that the information is accurate. Which you should do with any source of information, really, whether it's an encyclopedia, a newspaper, a website or a wiki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Wikipedia itself? Sure, it's just as good as any encyclopedia. Now, the wikicities... those are full of fanon and crap like that. I rarely trust what I find in there, as it's usual fan conjecture or complete bull made up by people who dislike that particular wikicity (for example, Star Wars kids screwing with Memory Alpha). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceAlex Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 What would constitute a legit source of information? That's a matter of who you choose to trust, which is a subjective choice in itself. I trust it in general, but I don't trust it blindly. Very few sources are truly completely objective, since people have written the content. People have opinions, people can misunderstand, and people can be wrong, no matter how intelligent and knowledgeable. Not everything you can read in a regular encyclopedia is 100% accurate, and none are free from mistakes. They may have higher standards that a wiki, but mistakes slip through anyway. Wikipedia have a larger number of proof-readers than most encyclopedias do. The problem with encyclopedias is that they also tend to contain somewhat outdated information, in particular within fields which undergo rapid changes or fast development. Wikipedia is a fast, free source of information which is reasonably up-to-date. If you cross reference information found there with other sources you can verify to some extent that the information is accurate. Which you should do with any source of information, really, whether it's an encyclopedia, a newspaper, a website or a wiki. What she said ^^. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Heh, so this topic got booted over here from the Unknown Regions, huh? I dunno, but when it comes to Star Wars canon and fanon, the folks out on the internet and conventions always seem to make the mistake of putting MUCH more thought into the Star Wars timeline and story than George Lucas ever did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Wikipedia is no Bible. It's WAY more accurate. Anyway, I can trust Wikipedia on most all things. Sure you have to look at the articles knowing they may have flaws, but the vast majority of the articles are very well-written it seems to me. When it comes to Star Wars info, however, I would not trust it. Many of the Star Wars articles have been infiltrated by EU fanboys and people who generally have no clue what they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Thats what Wookiepedia is for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Thats what Wookiepedia is for Wookieepedia is generally just as inaccurate and corrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 If it was limited to movie topics only it would b decently empty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I trust wikipedia in most cases. In my experience if something is wrong then it is very obvious. And they are very quick to fix anything people vandalize; I know from personal experience. (hint: scroll to personal life ) They reversed it within 30 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I trust wikipedia in most cases. In my experience if something is wrong then it is very obvious. And they are very quick to fix anything people vandalize; I know from personal experience. (hint: scroll to personal life ) They reversed it within 30 minutes.It took them a while to change it back... check out my last one ("Lord Karmic" is a moderator from the YTMND forums)- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Karmic&action=history (202.180.82.180 is me, language warning if you decide to see what I/others wrote about him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hallucination Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I trust it, but I take everything I find there with a grain of 100% salty goodness. @D-Mo: You're f*cking brilliant. @Doc: This reminds me about your LF wiki entry. Is that still being worked on, or did you abandon it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I trust wikipedia in most cases. In my experience if something is wrong then it is very obvious. And they are very quick to fix anything people vandalize; I know from personal experience. (hint: scroll to personal life ) They reversed it within 30 minutes. Son of a bitch! Very brilliant, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Unquestionable trust. It has never lead me astray. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some speeding sourdough to attend to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.