[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 10 KB, 225x225, wikepide.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4579794 No.4579794 [Reply] [Original]

Why are people so skeptical of Wikipedia, almost unfairly compared to how they view any other source?

One could argue that Wikipedia articles are placed under the most scrutiny possible just because of that, not to mention several other reasons.

Any topic is usually locked when its content does not check out. This ensures that only qualified users can edit it.

Any decent Wikipedia page has its citations listed RIGHT THERE. GO CHECK IT FOR YOURSELF.

No one actually edits things to be believably false. No ones going to go and change Grover Cleveland's birthday back 3 years for shits and giggles. They will instead write a ridiculous article on how he fought terrorists and was half shark or something. There's no fun in just slightly fucking over an article.

>> No.4579803

>There's no fun in just slightly fucking over an article.

Excuse me son are you undermining how I spend the majority of my waking life?

>> No.4579809

Because anyone can write in it, if I wanted anyone's inference from an article in how the atom bomb was dropped justly or unjustly I would go outside. A good example of this is that white privilege page

>> No.4579818

Lol I remember when all those retarded middle and high school teachers told us that wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

>It's only reliable if it ends in .org
>wikipedia doesn't count

>> No.4579827

They have in the past, it takes some time for Wiki to find the wrong page and fix it. In that time frame, that moment, someone can be citing that exact page and not check it again and then get an F.

I am not saying that I nor you wouldn't probably check other sources, but you have to look at it from a retard's perception.

>> No.4579833

>>4579809

But, anyone can just go out and set up a server with wrong info, too.

If you want the credibility of the author himself, that is totally possible on Wikipedia where many people namefag when they edit enough.

>> No.4579844

wikipedia is great as you can follow the cites and go direct to the sources

>> No.4579846

>>4579844

Yes, THANK YOU.

Most people are too stupid to get this.

>> No.4579854

The old generation doesn't like Wikipedia because it feels like cheating to them. In the good ol' times you had to go to a library, meet actual people and scholars in order to do research and acquire knowledge. Now all you need is an internet connection. That's cheating.

>> No.4579863

>>4579854
also wiki was a bit shit until they got aspie over no original research

>> No.4579865

I'm a graduate student (chemistry) at a major university and the first place we go when we want to know something (e.g. molecular weight, safety info...) is wikipedia. I plan on putting my papers into the wikipedia citations related to my research to help pad my H-index.

>> No.4579867
File: 86 KB, 1130x441, witch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4579867

some pic related wiki vandalism i did once. lasted many weeks

>> No.4579873

>>4579818
Yes, I can finally put 4chan as a source

>> No.4579875

>>4579867

you realize I could just go check for your ip and report you, right?

Good thing I wont.

>> No.4579880

>>4579875
Of course.

My IP changed years ago, was probably dynamic, and I don't mind being banned from editing as I almost never do it.

>> No.4579886

>>4579875
oh god

>> No.4579890

>>4579794

fucking agreed. i had some biology report where i stated that reptiles are paraphylitic instead of monophylitic and my fucking graduate student TA marked me down 10 fucking percent because our outdated book states otherwise....

she then stated that half of the class got this wrong due to wikipedia and we could have our points back if we showed a reputible source that agreed.... i guess she did not want to check the citations heraelf and found it much eaaier to be a fucking bitch about it.

inb4 someone says just show the citation to get your points.... fuck that shit, i have strong morals that keep me from turning into a point-grubbing faggot

>> No.4579894

>>4579875
>call the cops

>> No.4579897

Yeah, it lets users manipulate the data and information. Yeah, you don't need to be a "professional" to write an article. But wikipedia lets community to debate and present factual discrepancies on every topic. And it allows you to find far more information that could be contained in any set of books.

More importantly, it provides you a quick an easy means of looking for and finding similar topics or websites with more information on your topic.

>> No.4579912

>>4579890
So, you give an answer, which the TA thought was wrong. Then, the TA gives you an opportunity to get your points back, if you show a reputable source.
That seems quite reasonable to me.
Then you won't do it, because of retarded principles.
I see...

>> No.4579913

Wikipedia is pretty reliable. Just look it up on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

>> No.4579926

>>4579894

>Reported to Bioware

>> No.4579935

Generally speaking, the more obscure the topic is, the less reliable the wikipedia page is

>Harry Potter? Star Wars? The Dark Knight?
>Reliable.
>Grover Cleveland? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
>Pretty reliable.
>Agathodaimon? The seven virtues?
>Not reliable at all.

>> No.4579941
File: 10 KB, 207x160, girls are weird.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4579941

I remember on PBS, there used to be this advertisement they would always show when I was a kid.

One kid would have a dictionary, the other would have a computer. They would have two kids race each other to see who could find the definition of a specific word.

The announcer would yell go, and each commercial was the same. Kid 1 would open his book and start flipping through pages. Kid 2 would open a CD case and start putting it into the CD drive. But by the time Kid 2 had launched the program, Kid 1 had already found the word.

I was somewhat aware of it as a kid, but looking back, I never realized just how fucked up that commercial was.

>> No.4579957
File: 98 KB, 640x371, 9949574_4472e3ee3a_z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4579957

>> No.4579961

Sometimes, I feel as though the older generations are bitter about the fact that the technology they created is being used to make information free and easily accessible.

It's as though just because we're not paying people to find information these days, that automatically makes it unreliable. I can totally understand some of their concerns, and I think they're completely justified. But really, it just feels like they're just jealous that we're allowed to enjoy things they weren't able to.

>> No.4579960

>>4579941

Wait, what was the purpose of this commerical? Some kind of cheesy PSA to show kids that books arent lame? If I really had to encourage children to read more, I wouldnt do it by showing them what great STUDY TOOLS books are.

>> No.4579966

>>4579960
The ultimate message of the commercials, as I saw it, was that computers aren't as good as books for finding information.

It's as though the commercial was saying
>Wow, computers! Are you even trying?

>> No.4579976

>>4579935
>Generally speaking, the more obscure the topic is, the less reliable the wikipedia page is
... But hasn't that always been the case?

>> No.4579971

>>4579966
to be fair, those CD-Rom encyclopedias were total shit.

>> No.4579977

>>4579912
no... if the TA truly thought reptiles were monophylitic after eading the arguments in at least 10 students reports then she should be fucking burned at the stake, the only reason the answer was "wrong" is because the old textbook we used gives the fucking most simple, black and white, watered down information so that the average american with a GED can pass and get their sports science degree and become an elementary school PE teacher where they can "inspire" new generations of children to follow suit...

ya my morals may be a bit retarded at times but at least they keep me from being a fucking sheep that eats every piece of shit expected of them...

>> No.4580004

I have no idea why. For a project in my bio engineering class we had to write an article on wikipedia on a topic of our choice. We chose the glyoxylate cycle and how it could be used in engineering (check it, it's still there; I wrote some of it myself)

People who say anyone can edit it have not tried. There is an insane amount of things you have to go through. Sure, anyone can try to edit it. But watch, within an hour it's gone. They have thousands of employees who watch over the edits, and the edits have to go through them. You have to have significant amount of sources to edit it.

A couple of the other teams trying to write articles for that class actually had their articles deleted by the editing employees at Wikipedia before they could get a grade for it, caused alot of commotion in the class.

Cliffs: it should be respectable. At worst, use the cited articles at the bottom instead of wikipedia itself

>> No.4580012

yeah, mods sometimes go overboard with the deleting.
And there's a strong bias towards the establishment, which is understandable, but in some topics it gets in the way.

>> No.4580015

>>4580004
This.

/v/ and /b/ like to go and try to edit wikipedia pages, but I never really understand why they bother. It's not like people aren't going to immediately notice that PS3 HAS NO GAEMS has slipped into the article.

>> No.4580016

>>4579935
Wrong. The more obscure a page is the less likely people are to vandalize it. The point of vandalism is to troll people by misinforming them. If you vandalize a page no one ever reads then you've just wasted your time. On the other hand when someone visits an obscure page (especially a technical page related to math or science) then they are more likely to be using it for some academic reason. In such cases they are likely to notice any huge errors (or small ones, I once had to correct the ground state electron configuration for copper) and correct them.

>> No.4580019

>>4579865
In math when we're looking for definitions for algebra we also look first at Wikipedia.

>> No.4580020

>>4579913
It's pretty like the Bible.

>> No.4580027
File: 46 KB, 376x401, sheeple.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4580027

>>4579977
try to be more of a cliche

>> No.4580036

>dont use wikipedia
>use it anyways and just wrote down wikipedia's sources
>callthecopsidontgiveafuck.jpg

>> No.4580040

>>4580004
>employees
nope, they do that insane shit for free

>> No.4580050

>>4580020
Except Wikipedia has facts in it.

>> No.4580056

>>4580027

yes, the idea is vey cliche.... but that does not negate its validity...
you can easily be caught with that bubble over your head while your walking on the streets or riding the bus, but there is a difference between having a thought about thinking/doing for yourself and actually thinking/doing for yourself.

>> No.4580065

Some articles on wikipedia are ok, but there are many which are utter shit. It's just that the quality of articles is variable.

Some issues are very politicised, there are activists who literally spend their every day editing articles to make sure they give it a spin according to their agenda. So, well, wikipedia articles are as good as their contributors/editors. Some might be done by experts in a field, others by aspies with too much time, and still others by some fags who want to manipulate those who have no idea on a subject and are looking for a more technical explanation.

>> No.4580077

>>4580065


note to self, stay away from wikipedia pages with terms that use -technology as a suffix...

>> No.4580126

>>4580056


What do you want the TA to do, get on his knees and beg for forgiveness? The burden of proof is on the person who brings a new argument to the table, contradicting old information. Your moralizing is just pride run wild.

>> No.4580141

>>4579977
Sorry. Can I get this straight for a second. The TA is wrong, choosing to follow the course textbook and believing the wikipedia page to be incorrect. Deciding that this would be a perfect "lesson" she harshly penalizes all the people perceived wrong. She then offers to take back this penalty if you can show her a citation that proves this fact (which, being on Wikipedia, there probably was a citation backing it up).

Besides you have a jaded and falsely superior opinion regarding the education system and other people, you instead push all the blame onto others and refuse to do any part in correcting a mistake due to your "morals". Guess what? You deserve to lose the marks.

>>4580056
Here's the thing. The viewpoint you've adopted is unhealthy and incorrect. People like you grossly underestimate the independent thought that occurs in everybody else, because you're so focused on non conformity. Everyone is an individual, whether you see it or not.

People like you make me so mad, because you take this kind of idea to the extreme, and develop such a superior complex that it's disgusting.

>> No.4580240

There's an art successful wiki vandalizing. You have to make it subtle enough that it isn't noticed at a cursory glance, yet is still pretty obviously wrong/funny at a closer inspection.

Also, once someone else edits a different part of the article and your edit gets buried to the back pages of the edit history, it's pretty much there forever, especially with more obscure articles.

example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amisk_Lake

>> No.4580243

If you need to cite Wikipedia about something, go to the source that Wikipedia is citing instead.

>> No.4580269

>>4579854
I think what they really object to is how anyone can edit the thing. As a young generation, I can't say they're entirely wrong on this.

>> No.4580321

>>4579844
but I could write a page on a chemistry topic and cite a bunch of shit articles that never got cited by other papers and come to incorrect conclusions.
Now what?

>> No.4580329

Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jakob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg had his name changed to Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg on Wikipedia. The media fell for it. Serious stuff.

>> No.4580333

its fine as an encyclopedia

no one was even referencing encyclopedias in the past so this isnt a problem unless you a lazy and want to base all your knowledge off of it. use it as a basic intro to the subjects. do not expect to get quality insight or well esearched up to date material.

>> No.4580403
File: 933 KB, 200x200, 1333710720132.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4580403

>Be a theoretical physicist.
>Actively working for new equations.
>Decide to troll the world.
>Upload our information directly to Wikipedia before anywhere else.
>Counter anyone who disagrees with us.
>Finally release our information to the presses a day later.
>Mfw old media is now actively forced to compete with new media.

>> No.4580413
File: 20 KB, 241x230, cigs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4580413

>>4580403
This.

Wikipedia (or something like it) is actively going to become the only proper system of peer review. All information will be exchanged electronically.

Which now makes me think that I'll be able to get