How to make something not a fact into a fact - Page 2

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

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

Will · 04-10-2007, 10:46

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.

Mark · 04-10-2007, 17:40

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.

Mark · 04-10-2007, 19:20

I assume that was at least partly directed at me. I'm not missing any of it.

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.

Fayshun · 05-10-2007, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicatsii

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.

Garp · 05-10-2007, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicatsii

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.

04-10-2007, 10:44	#11
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	So thats OK then isn't it? Wiki isn't Britanica, if it was you would have to pay for it 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 __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

04-10-2007, 10:46	#12
Will BBx woz 'ere :P Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 2,147,487,208	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. __________________ *No No!*

04-10-2007, 14:23	#13
Stan_Lite Stan, Stan the FLASHER MAN! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: In bed with your sister Posts: 5,483	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. __________________ Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean I...

04-10-2007, 17:09	#14
semi-pro waster Provider of sensible advice about homosexuals Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: London Posts: 2,615	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. __________________ "Your friend is the man that knows all about you, and still likes you." - Elbert Hubbard

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-10-2007, 17:40	#15
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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.

04-10-2007, 19:20	#16
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	I assume that was at least partly directed at me. I'm not missing any of it. 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.

05-10-2007, 09:00	#17
iicatsii Columbian Coffee Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 55	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.

05-10-2007, 10:09	#19
iicatsii Columbian Coffee Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 55	Given, it's good for Simpsons episode trivia and Pokemon facts, but for anything else you might as well use Uncyclopedia.