Wikipedia

[Dreamworld]

Why do people say wikipedia isn't a valid source? Teachers in my school say that anybody can edit it, but its not true! Its takes a long process to get your article in, and it must be all sourced.. Isn't that what a regular encyclopedia is?

[Serkat]

Why do people say wikipedia isn't a valid source? Teachers in my school say that anybody can edit it, but its not true! Its takes a long process to get your article in, and it must be all sourced.. Isn't that what a regular encyclopedia is?It's an open encyclopedia. The process for applying a change to an article is a lot different to say - changing an article in a reference book about biochemistry.

Wikipedia is still great for general info, getting an overview, and it's a decent source for sources.

[Oneironaut]

Wikipedia is a good starting point. It's good to check the reference area to see exactly where the various information in wikipedia is coming from. If there are no sources cited for a certain piece of information, it's always good to check it somewhere else as well.

[Jdeadevil]

Yes, it's the information that internet people use. It's the reason why I'm guessing "Pwnd" is viewed by thousands of normal people accidently being transformed into an internet person.

"Hello Bart Simpson? We're from the internet"

[ninja9578]

It can be an invalid resource, but you also have a ton of people looking at it, that is the beauty of things that are open.

[Jdeadevil]

Open = For internet people also, lol

[Ynot]

sabotage a wikipedia page
change it from fact to fiction
see what happens

[Jdeadevil]

I want to do that so badly! :(

[Ynot]

£10 says your changes won't last 24 hours

[Jdeadevil]

Lol - How about Uncylopedia?

[Carôusoul]

Lol - How about Uncylopedia?

Uncyclopedia isn't wikipedia, and isn't taken seriously for reference, so it won't make a difference.

[Jdeadevil]

Yes, I know, and apparently it's not a funny site.

[Dreamworld]

Uncyclopedia isn't wikipedia, and isn't taken seriously for reference, so it won't make a difference. Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia that can everyone can really edit. Some pages are funny while some really suck.

[Bayside]

Wikipedia is a lot more reliable now then it used to be, but it's still not fool-proof, so it's not academically acceptable. Earlier this year, we had someone at our school doing a research paper on Stalin, and came across an interesting paragraph on Wikipedia which stated that Stalin crapped his pants all the time. He would just sit at his desk and crap his pants all day long, while dealing with executions and whatnot. So yeah, you can see why some people might not trust Wikipedia anymore....

[Dreamworld]

£10 says your changes won't last 24 hours I bet $100 that it won't even change. It has to go through processes, and must be approved by the chain of powers.

[Jdeadevil]

Some people just like to use Stealth in their included texts don't they?

[Dreamworld]

Some people just like to use Stealth in their included texts don't they? What do you mean?

[Jdeadevil]

What that guy said about someone crapping all day on Wikipedia.

[AmazeO XD]

You know on WIKIpedia, they say that cake is usually lightly covered with a glaze or frosting, or sometimes marzipan, and frozen fruit.

[Carôusoul]

Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia that can everyone can really edit. Some pages are funny while some really suck.

So what?

That doesn't change what I said. I know what it is.

[Dreamworld]

So what?

That doesn't change what I said. I know what it is.

It was a statement for whoever didn't know about it.

[wasup]

People think wikipedia is wrong because facts might be wrong. But what teachers don't realize is that people won't go onto wikipedia and maliciously write in things like "The civil war ended in 1864" and be like 'LOL I GOT THOSE GUYS BAD OWNED!" Anything that is changed like that will be obvious, such as "Stalin constantly crapped his pants." etc. I understand why teachers might not want someone to use it on people or events and such, but for such things as theories, ideas, etc., it is a very, very good source. Wikipedia is not as valid as other things, but regardless it is not as bad as people make it out to be.

What I HATE though is that teachers would prefer me to take information off any other site BUT wikipedia. What I like to do if I can't use wikipedia and I'm positive the info on there is correct, I just go to a place that plagiarized wikipedia information (answers.com usually has wikipedia articles instead of original information). Teachers would rather their students go to some obscure site about someone rather than wikipedia, which is retarded. The fact is, unless it's a .gov, .edu, a popular newspaper (such as new york times), or other very valid website, ANYONE can edit THE INTERNET. I would say some obscure site is much less valid than wikipedia because no one else is allowed to change the information or let others know it is wrong.

I just hope something changes to make wikipedia seem more valid. I honestly can't remember what I ever did before wikipedia. Wikipedia is the top hit on virtually every single thing I post that has to do with some sort of fact, thing, place, event, person, etc. It is the best organized, most relevant, covers the most (yet is the most specific). As my brother says, iphone + wikipedia = hitchhiker's guide to the universe. If I were stuck on an island and I could have one thing, it'd be wikipedia access :P

[A Roxxor]

Lol - How about Uncylopedia?

If you post something utterly unfunny and just plain jibberish then your article will not live through the day.

[[SomeGuy]]

Isn't jibberish spelled Gibberish?

[A Roxxor]

Not in my Universe.

[[SomeGuy]]

Hm. Well, it is in mine. lul.

The font will be up soon.

[A Roxxor]

YEY :imslow:

[Bob Dole]

sabotage a wikipedia page
change it from fact to fiction
see what happens

If a bunch of people agree on fiction does that make it fact? Wikipedia only requires a bunch of people to agree on something to make it fact. It's a good source of information, but don't start writing an essay based on what you read there.

[Dreamworld]

If a bunch of people agree on fiction does that make it fact? Wikipedia only requires a bunch of people to agree on something to make it fact. It's a good source of information, but don't start writing an essay based on what you read there. Aren't those the principles a encyclopedia is based on?..

[Jdeadevil]

If a bunch of people agree on fiction does that make it fact? Wikipedia only requires a bunch of people to agree on something to make it fact. It's a good source of information, but don't start writing an essay based on what you read there.

Lol, if you believe it, it's real. :chuckle:

[Ynot]

If a bunch of people agree on fiction does that make it fact? Wikipedia only requires a bunch of people to agree on something to make it fact. It's a good source of information, but don't start writing an essay based on what you read there.
Aren't those the principles a encyclopedia is based on?..
Exactly,
any reference source is based on "a bunch of people" (online & in print)

the difference is, wikipedia (or any wiki) greatly expands this "bunch of people" from the dozen or so compiling a traditional print encyclopedia to include anyone and everyone, globally

what those who shout "but anyone can edit it, so how is it reliable" fail to see, is that because anyone is free to edit it, you will get a far broader scope of certifiable information with far less personal bias

For a sufficiently popular article
the number of contributers will increase greatly
therefore any bias or inaccuracies from any single contributer will be weeded out
leaving only certifiable information

It's peer review at it's finest

There are problems with obscure subjects
as inaccuracies or bias can go unnoticed for a while
but thats purely down to the lack of contributers to that subject

[Thatperson]

in the real world people will change their view of wikipedia based on their argument, if they want to prove a point they may use wikipedia, if you try to use it however then suddenly wikipedia is unvalid. Also it's really common to hear the phrase "just because it's wikipedia, that doesnt mean it's right" well no it doesnt but most of the time it is, just because it's wikipedia it doesnt mean it's wrong ;).

[Kromoh]

Lol.

Wikipedia was the greatest idea ever. Combined the information of an encyclopedia with the flexibility and globality of the Internet.

Wikipedia is by far less biased than any other encyclopedia. Its criteria is way stricter, it is revised and monitored by an expanded amount of people, and allows for a much broader availability of content. Wikipedia is full of information on anything you want - I doubt Brittanica has an article on Inverloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverloch_%28webcomic%29).

Wikipedia is the future of information. Common sense.