View Full Version : How to make something not a fact into a fact
At least on wikipedia anyway.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/
An interesting thing to note is that by the wiki rules because there are independant sources that can be cited, even though they are completely and utterly wrong; it is count as fact.
I heard this on BBC news and thought it was odd! Unbelieveable on the journos' part(s).
Richard Slater
03-10-2007, 18:53
Similar things happen over and over again, there has been at least one instance of the NYT taking something from Wikipedia and said article in NYT being used as a reference.
Its great fun!
I hate Wikipedia with a passion. The amount of times I've seen factual items being 'corrected' in favour of tosh.
I hate Wikipedia with a passion. The amount of times I've seen factual items being 'corrected' in favour of tosh.
I agree totally. Admittedly a lot of the info is generally correct, but it's only as good as the people that edit it and frankly there's so much spin and bias put on a lot of them I take whatever it has to offer with a pinch of salt. It could be SO good, but it's only as good as people's opinions or point of view - it takes a huge amount of skill to write in a totally analytical and factual way and not involve any empathy or subjectivity.
Exactly.
It's good for TV-episode finding though.
If you have issues with wiki pages.. edit them. Thats kinda the whole point.
I'm not a skilled analytical, factual or objective writer - it will be biased and have my own personal spin on it. As intelligent as I am, I know my limitations - I won't be able to write it fairly and factually and without any subjectivity.
So that's no different to how a lot of people do it currently *shrug*
Matblack
04-10-2007, 10:44
So thats OK then isn't it?
Wiki isn't Britanica, if it was you would have to pay for it :dunno:
For me one of the good things about Wiki is that you get the little snippets of information that you wouldn't with someone being completely objective, you do have to take things with a pinch of salt but you also a more interesting read.
If Wiki didn't make it patently obnvious that it was constructed in the way it is I might have an issue with it but by its nature it tells you it may not always be 100% accurate
MB
It's fine but it's not categoric fact as far as I'm concern. The concept's fantastic, but I just find it odious to be told I'm wrong purely because an editable source on the internet states a particular reference in a certain way.
True it is more interesting to read and so on, as long as you take it as a work of partially factual fiction.
Stan_Lite
04-10-2007, 14:23
It would be foolish in the extreme to quote from only one source (especially one which can be edited by the public) and pass it off as incontrovertible fact - that journalists are doing so in (so called) quality newspapers, I find utterly astonishing.
I use Wikipedia as a quick and easy source of information but I would be most reluctant to quote it as fact unless I'd checked the contents of the article with at least one reliable source. If this is not possible, I will quote the Wiki article with the caveat that the information has not been verified and should not necessarily be taken as fact.
semi-pro waster
04-10-2007, 17:09
Interesting, I am slightly surprised that more dilligent checking of an obituary wasn't carried out but I guess the time pressure/laziness can get to anyone.
I like Wikipedia as a quick source to gain a rough overview of a topic, it is right more often than not but except in limited circumstances I wouldn't consider it as a substitute for 'proper' sources. Then again you should never take any one source entirely at face value without checking, some might be better than others however without a balanced overview from a few sources you could be missing important points.
I'm the same - I use Wikipedia as a first port of call for a lot of things that are not (a) technical, or (b) current affairs (I use Google for the former and the BBC for the latter - despite their reputation for not always being as impartial as they should, but that's another topic).
Would I stake my reputation on Wikipedia alone? Absolutely not.
I assume that was at least partly directed at me. I'm not missing any of it. :huh:
It's clearly Reuters fault for not checking their sources. As reputable and longstanding as they are, you don't expect them to make a mistake like that, and can't blame the other organisations for relying on the information (with the exception of the BBC who really should have known better given how long he worked there), but that'll be lost on people who don't understand the workings of the journalism industry.
iicatsii
05-10-2007, 09:00
Any compendium of information is going to be absolute rubbish if it allows anyone to edit; saying that Citizendium, which only allows academics to submit information is a failure as well, due to the fact that contributors tend to think that they own the articles they’re working on. If someone adds information, regardless of how factual and how well sourced it is, if it goes against the thinking of the main contributor to the article then it’ll be removed.
Any project like this will fail.
Saying that, Larry Sanger (the founder of Citizendium) isn’t a gob****e, unlike Jimbo Wales.
Any compendium of information is going to be absolute rubbish if it allows anyone to edit;
I wouldn't call Wikipedia absolute rubbish. :/
iicatsii
05-10-2007, 10:09
Given, it's good for Simpsons episode trivia and Pokemon facts, but for anything else you might as well use Uncyclopedia.
Any compendium of information is going to be absolute rubbish if it allows anyone to edit
Which is why numerous independant tests have proven Wikipedia to be more accurate than such luminaries as Encyclopedia Britannica and so on.
iicatsii
05-10-2007, 10:26
Which is why numerous independant tests have proven Wikipedia to be more accurate than such luminaries as Encyclopedia Britannica and so on.
Links please, or it never happened.
Links please, or it never happened.
http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
iicatsii
05-10-2007, 10:51
http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
I've seen that link before, it comes from the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself (lol bias) and it's years old. Since then there's been the plagiarism scandal, Essjay scandal, Wikiscanner scandal.
On top of that other facts about wikipedia have been changed by Jimbo Wales himself, like for instance the money that was invested to start up Wikipedia didn't come from a pornography site, but a search engine that dealt with 'erotic imagery' and that Jimbo came up with Wikipedia all by himself, with no help from anyone?
Saying that, Wikipedia is going to change. They're testing out the closed editing platform over at the German version. If successful, then Wikipedia will become more like Citizendium.
Wasn't the study done by Nature though?
iicatsii
05-10-2007, 11:06
Yes. What I meant is that when it comes to criticism of Wikipedia, they only let mild criticism to be added to the article due to the fact that the study said that Wikipedia was marginally less accurate than Britannica (any thing more comes under the BADSITES policy.) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Nature was biased.
The study is years out of date though, a lot has changed.
Which is why numerous independant tests have proven Wikipedia to be more accurate than such luminaries as Encyclopedia Britannica and so on.
LOL! ;D
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.