Source wikipedia

[Davey]

You see it in a lot of posts, small quotes with a link to wikipedia.

WikiPedia states:

Unlike yellowjackets and hornets, which can be very aggressive, polistine paper wasps will generally only attack if they themselves ....

Otherwise, read an overview: Kanji -- Wikipedia (readings).

The information in these kind of threads are very accurate, but how about those with political views. Such as Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia . This page has been edited almost everyday since 2002... People with different views on this topic can just add information, which is of course being watched more than a page about Doraemon. When you look at the Japanese version of the page there it's almost 1/3 of the English version. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/南京事件_(1937年).

So what do you think about the usage of Wikipedia, when someone is trying to make a statement about certain things like the Nanking Massacre, or the Israeli Palestinian conflict, etc?

 

[Haruspex]

Wikipedia is not an academic source and cannot be relied upon in a truly serious debate. Even in an informal debate concerning controversial issues that involve facts, websites hardly count for anything, Wikipedia, of course, being no exception.

 

[Mycernius]

It depends on what you are using it for. Just for general information then it is fine, but when citing religious or other controversial subjects it is always better to cite other sources along with it.

 

[let`s talk]

I seldom use wiki and if I do, I use it only for fields I know nothing about, like medical studies, just to get a very general information and that is all. I strongly believe that an adult shouldn't base his/her opinion on wiki or any other sites, including serious one. Sites are just sources to get facts. Nothing more. Opinions are results of individual analysis, independent work of mind. Adults are supposed to be capable to do that.

 

[Nuala]

Using Wikipedia to back your opinion up on an internet discussion forum is acceptable. Using Wikipedia to write your thesis is another matter entirely. I personally use Wikipedia to back up what I am saying due to the fact it's in several languages, it's sources are reliable, and contributions to the articles at hand are constantly scrutinized as to provide the most accurate information.

I accept that some people would prefer that discussions be allowed to continue on forever, or until someone who disagrees with them grows tired of the incessant nonsense and stops replying, but I am not one of those people. I understand that people like caster51, and let's talk may be a little confused in the head, as I'm sure the Japanese government does not want to teach it's children how their ancestors during WWII butchered tens of millions of innocent people.

But, ignorance isn't, and has never been excuse, so while you discuss the maturity of people using Wikipedia to back up their opinion on the intarwebs, try to find a little humility and accept that you can be wrong sometimes.

 

[let`s talk]

I understand that people like caster51, and let's talk may be a little confused in the head.

There are a lot of upper-educated people, including on this forum (not me of course, lol), who will tell you how irreliable wiki can be. In any case it could be a nice start for a 20yo college boy to read wiki, better this than nothing.

 

[Nuala]

There are a lot of upper-educated people, including on this forum (not me of course, lol), who will tell you how irreliable wiki can be. In any case it could be a nice start for a 20yo college boy to read wiki, better this than nothing.

Yes, you're definitely not reaping the rewards of continuing your education. At any rate, no professional should cite Wikipedia as a source of information, just the same as it would be inadvisable to take all your facts from the Encyclopedia Britannica for an educational or professional work. However, Wikipedia does strive for the most reliable sources in it's articles, and I believe it is okay to use it on a forum such as this one.

Either way, I am no longer going to reply to this thread, considering this is the second time I've been attacked.

 

[let`s talk]

A poster who said personal things about other posters who were not even talking about him at all:

I understand that people like caster51, and let's talk may be a little confused in the head

Yes, you're definitely not reaping the rewards of continuing your education.

is now complaining that HE is an actual vicitm. A classic case of hypocrisy and childishness:

considering this is the second time I've been attacked.

 

[Davey]

considering this is the second time I've been attacked.

I have been thinking about making a thread regarding Wikipedia for already a while. I do apologize for posting it now, making it look as if I am attacking you directly.

 

[undrentide]

While Wikipedia is interesting and useful to get general information, it is a collection of information anyone can post (in many cases), and when it comes to history and politics where there are often more than two sides, it is just a collection of most popular views at best.
I tend to rely on Wikipedia myself, but when using it as a backing evidence or support of one's opinion, we should be careful and remember it is not almighty and not always/necessarily correct.

 

[Nuala]

I have been thinking about making a thread regarding Wikipedia for already a while. I do apologize for posting it now, making it look as if I am attacking you directly.

I do not believe you are. I'm sure my post in the Suggestions forum gave you the idea, and it will be a good, if not overdone debate.

Adults are supposed to be capable to do that.

This.

In any case it could be a nice start for a 20yo college boy to read wiki, better this than nothing.

This.

A poster who said personal things about other posters who were not even talking about him at all:
is now complaining that HE is an actual vicitm. A classic case of hypocrisy and childishness:

This is trolling, and is not appreciated whatsoever.

 

[let`s talk]

This.
This.

??? "This" is what? Did you actually read what I posted?:

I seldom use wiki and if I do, I use it only for fields I know nothing about, like medical studies, just to get a very general information and that is all. I strongly believe that an adult shouldn't base his/her opinion on wiki or any other sites, including serious one. Sites are just sources to get facts. Nothing more. Opinions are results of individual analysis, independent work of mind. Adults are supposed to be capable to do that.

The thread is about wikipedia and I said my opinion about wiki. I have no idea why you assumed that by "adults" I meant you personally. Trust me I wasn't even thinking about you. There is a world beyond your ego. Seriously, I don't know what issues you have with wiki, maybe I missed something, but right now you look paranoid and childish. You are right about trolling. I would call it derailing thread from a topic about the information resource into the silly topic about you or so-called attacking you when in fact none of this is happening.

 

[undrentide]

Can't we discuss in civilized manner without taking things personally?
Let us concentrate on wiki. I've already posted my comments but I'd like to hear what other members think about wiki and how they use it.

 

[Nuala]

right now you look paranoid and childish.

Oh okay, I've seen the errors of my way.

In any case it could be a nice start for a 20yo college boy to read wiki, better this than nothing.

Hey! Wait a minute...!

Maybe my bad English confused you.

This is intriguing me.

I used google translate to understand this phrase and I failed. Sorry.

You are either trolling me, or have inadvertently derailed this thread due to your poor grasp on the English language and sarcasm. I would prefer it to be the latter, but you're coming off as being sarcastic. This is not an illogical train of thought, so either elaborate or cut the crap.

 

[Half-n-Half]

??? "This" is what?

"This." is internet slang for (basically) "This is true." In other words, he agrees.

Can't we discuss in civilized manner without taking things personally?
Let us concentrate on wiki. I've already posted my comments but I'd like to hear what other members think about wiki and how they use it.

This.

What I use most about wikipedia is its random button. Great way to browse a wide range of topics when you are bored.

 

[Hezam]

Wikipedia is good for the general information but not good for political/religious and somewhat historical issues.
Unfortunatly i realised that too late.
When i found the word "Edit" i close the tap and never get the political/religious from Wiki.

Thanks for the topic.

 

[Nuala]

When i found the word "Edit" i close the tap and never get the political/religious from Wiki.

The sheer number of religions in the world indicate that none of them are true. Which is more right than another? Religion was simply a way for mankind to grasp the world around them, and to scare straight those who would act against their species, which has obviously never worked.

The Roman Catholic Church has been a stain on mankind since it's conception. While the good followers of the church have done good, the bad followers have done wrong with it. From the Spanish Inquisition, to the modern day problem with the church condemning usage of birth control.

Groups like Al-Qaeda are turning the allegedly peaceful religion of Islam into a hate machine, and you would not read articles on Wikipedia concerning political or religious matters? I am confused by this, Hezam. Why would you wish for the confines of ignorance? Considering the fact that Wikipedia also has thousands of Muslim contributors, don't you think that it's a plus?

A Catholic Church run Wikipedia would be just as bad as a Al-Qaeda run Wikipedia. It's in the hands of the users, who come from diverse backgrounds to contribute to it. I'm being entirely serious with this, but despite the fact that Wikipedia is not always accurate, it strives to be, and if not already considered a wonder of the modern world, it will be given enough time. It's nothing short of Prometheus stealing fire from Zeus and giving it to Man.

 

[Hezam]

1- This thread is about Wikipedia.
2- Whether Muslims write on Wikipedia or any other people,Wikipedia is a battlefield when it comes to politicy/religions...
3- You know why there are millions of ignorant Muslims ? we have a very bad education here and we are not allowed to edit our subjects.
4- There are alot of bad editors in Wikipedia ( From all religions and not only Catholic Christians ).
5- It would be better for Wikipedia to allow some trusted teams to write on Wiki.


*sigh*

 

[Nuala]

5- It would be better for Wikipedia to allow some trusted teams to write on Wiki.

I disagree. A handful of people could be easily manipulated, based on their opinions and upbringing, surely you can understand why there needs to be accountability and the freedom to edit an article provided there is a source you can draw a reason for editing it the article from.

3- You know why there are millions of ignorant Muslims ? we have a very bad education here and we are not allowed to edit our subjects.

There are people within the United Nations, and international groups looking to improve the quality of life within the Middle-East and other parts of the world. Look on the bright side, if the present goes well, the quality of education could be increased ten times from what it is now within twenty years. I really hope I can look back twenty years from now, and be happy with the way the world has turned out.

 

[noyhauser]

The reality of wikipedia contribution structure is somewhat complex. First off there are the core of editors, who look at a wide range of articles and edit them stylistically or content-wise to the encyclopedia's standards. There are very few of them (I think under a thousand), but they are responsible for most of the edits by volume. However most "original" content is provided by a huge, diverse array of individuals who post alot of detailed information on maybe one or two things... possibly something they are an "expert" on. The editors then work to ensure these posts meet the overall standards and balance.

Overall wikipedia is a really mediocre source of information. It might be useful to orient yourself if you know nothing or very little about something. However it usually provide only a bare bones overview. The sources often used are online free ones, which can be poor in quality. Moreover wikipedia is an extremely poor source to obtain any sense of context on a topic beyond the basic facts.

 

[Nuala]

Moreover wikipedia is an extremely poor source to obtain any sense of context on a topic beyond the basic facts.

I can agree with you on this, noyhauser. It is indeed good for the basic facts of a subject. That's what an encyclopedia is for.

 

[let`s talk]

"This." is internet slang for (basically) "This is true." In other words, he agrees.

I see. Thanks for explaining that and a special thanks for being smart enough to do that voluntarily when you saw the confusement, in spite of not being involved in the misunderstanding directly.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Well, Wikipedia once had me married to John Cho for about 5 minutes, which shows two things: first, how easy it is to vandalise, and secondly, how quickly it can get picked up when it is vandalised.

However, a study back in 2005 showed that Wikipedia is about as reliable as Britannica on scientific articles: BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test. Also, the mark-ups on the articles usually give you some idea of how much you can trust it.

 

[Mycernius]

Well, Wikipedia once had me married to John Cho for about 5 minutes, which shows two things: first, how easy it is to vandalise, and secondly, how quickly it can get picked up when it is vandalised.

There was a phase when Ken Bruce and Lynn Bowles entries on wiki were being edited everyday with people putting false info in. I'm not saying that Ken and Lynn were encouraging it, but they did talk about the latest updates on the radio until wiki locked the pages.

Whether you regard wikipedia as good for citing consider its clones and they make wiki look like the paragon of sanity. There are the jokes ones such as Sickipedia and Uncyclopedia, but you also get the fundies using the name to try and push their agenda as real entries such as Conservapedia. (not for the easily wound up).

 

[Nuala]

Well, Wikipedia once had me married to John Cho for about 5 minutes, which shows two things: first, how easy it is to vandalise, and secondly, how quickly it can get picked up when it is vandalised.

Yes, you can vandalize Wikipedia, as you probably did to list yourself as married to John Cho, but you should know there is a mark against your IP address now on Wikipedia.