Trust Wikipedia?
 

Do you think a volunteer-written encyclopedia can maintain a high standard of accuracy, or do you think alot of bad information probably slips through the cracks? In this article: deliberate (and subtle) deceptions were corrected within three hours.

it depends on the subject, but i trust it less than i trust the cellar. if you've got a question and you drop it on the cellar you'll usually get the info you need from a source that doesn't want to blow their credibility by spouting stupid BS. unless you're talking politics or nipple pics. then we're all about the silly stuff.

Well. I just asked it some questions the answers to which are subject to a lot of historical inaccuracy and controversy and was quite surprised to find it had taken account of current historical scholarship. I wouldn't cite it in an essay.....but it could be useful if you are just looking for a few quick facts.

I think enough people access it for it to be broadly accurate. I tend to use it to double check something I already had an idea about.

I've certainly spotted some inaccuracies, but mostly in the details.

I voted for "As much as any other source" but what I was really voting for was "as much as any other source on the web."

Wikipedia is quite accurate, and very convenient. It's not perfect. But I know of no quicker way to look something up quickly to get a good answer. If you want to really dig into a topic, I wouldn't stop at wikipedia, but it's a great starting point. If I was still doing research papers, I would probably use it as a research tool to get an overview of the subject and then dig further for more information from a more established reputable source.

It depends on the topic. If I judge it to be relatively non-controversial general knowledge (example: who was President of the United States in 1837? What year did A Chorus Line premier on Broadway? What's the quadratic formula?) then for my purposes Wikipedia is as good as any other general reference source.

I think one responsible source is just as reliable as another. I do check multiple sources for the same information. That includes Wikipedia as a cross reference. Wikipedia includes many links to cross reference information of which I like.

edited for tw

So Rush Limbaugh was as reliable as Peter Jennings? I suspect you were limiting the context to 'responsible sources'. Responsible sources, for example, provide reasons for their conclusions - explain the underlying principles, related theories, numerical facts, citations, and peer review. Same report from Daily News (tabloid) and Philly Inquirer (broadsheet). Simplistic Daily News version without related details and reasons 'why' also provided an erroneous and distorted conclusion. Classic example of lying by telling half truths - or why propaganda works. The Daily News report was too short - an executive summary. Executive summary is for those who only need 'feel' informed.

To actually know something, the entire report or white paper must be read. Executive who make decisions from executive summaries are also called MBAs. Reader who learns without demanding details, underlying principles, related theories, etc are best described as uneducated. Major difference between Peter Jennings and Rush Limbaugh. Rush hypes what his daily White House fax told him to say - without underlying details. Peter Jennings demanded more of his reporters - demanded details and supporting evidence before he would even report it.

Who would you believe? Wikipedia or Rush Limbaugh? That should be obvious. But an answer without including ‘why’ means that answer is in error - has no credibility - is so unreliable as to be ignored. Question atop this paragraph demonstrates the concept – the point. Those underlying principles are, for example, why I so forcefully disputed Saddam's WMDs as advocated in 2002, was confident in what I posted, and why I saw a 1990 invasion of Kuwait as inevitable months before Saddam attacked. You know credibility in details. We knew Saddam and bin Laden did not conspire because we knew the men’s history, objectives, etc. Those who met the definition of ‘uneducated’, instead, believed a lying president who blamed 11 Sept on Saddam. Not all sources are worthy or meet the definition of reliable. Fox News has a credibility problem for obvious reasons as defined above.

Do I trust Wikipedia? Compared to what?

I can not believe any single source, before I quote any thing I check for other sources, and comments. Anything published will be colored by the writer, or editor. Encyclopedia and other reference materials are as vulnerable as news sources to creative editing. Even trusted sources should be treated as suspect until you check all available sources.

Having read other replies and given this more thought I think for me Wikipedia's best aspect is that it references cultural phenomenon.

When I read a reference to Jonestown and poisoned KoolAid in a Stephen King book back in the 80s I actually ended up going to the reference library to find out more, because no-one I asked knew what I was talking about.

Now I can check Wikipedia if something is referenced in a book or film. Including things like TV series, catchphrases, even random events mentioned by Dwellars.

Yes, I could just Google them - but if all I have is a few words, and I'm interested in an explanation not a sales pitch I'll usually check there first.

Wikipedia is absolutely one of the internet's best results, a coalescing of the net's wisdom that has become a vital resource. With it, the collective accuracy rate of the world rises; if Wikipedia is only 97% accurate, that's an improvement over the 60% (source: my asshole) you'd get with a simple Google search.

A tremendous amount of foresight and good decisions have gone into the thing, and I'm the usual techno-optimist but I think it is part of the net revolution that makes us all more productive and innovative.

I agree. Did you follow the link in my initial post? It pretty much disproves the criticisms of the collective structure Wikipedia utilizes.

"The fibs that professor Alexander Halavais slipped in were deviously subtle: that abolitionist Frederick Douglass, lived in Syracuse, N.Y. for four years, and that the Disney film The Rescuers Down Under won an Oscar for film editing. Both are false, but would you have doubted these "factoids"?

Halavais hypothesized that the obscure errors would "languish online for some time," the Chronicle reported. Instead the Wikipedia volunteers eliminated all the fabrications within three hours of being posted."

ah yes. Thanks for clearning that up.

Wikipedia will never be Encyclopedia Britannica. Too many people messing in too many pots to keep track of. That is not, however, to say that Wikipedia is not useful. Most of the time that I go to wp, I do not care whether it is an authoritative reference on the topic.

Or, you could say: so many people fact-checking that it is guaranteed to be highly accurate, as this article suggests.

For general knowledge it works for me, sometimes even more than I care to know. If I know nothing about the subject, why should I give a damn if it's wrong. No one is going to quote anything I say. :smack:

I couldn't agree more.

ha, never say never

OK Damn whoda thought it?

OK I'll buy, one of. Doesn't hold a candle to the biggest boon to porn since the polaroid. :lol:

The nice thing is, the almost instantaneous updating on many subjects. There appears to be people that have made it their goal in life to keep Wiki valid....at least in agreement with their views.

It's fast, extensive, and better than most stupid motherfucker's poorly written and formatted websites that are essentially copy and pastes of another stupid motherfucker's website.

Now come on Wolf, don't sit on the fence, playing coy....tell us what you really think :P

Yes, what complete horsecrap. Take a look at another HUGE inaccuracy.


Relative to all other television and radio programs in the US, Limbaugh's audience has the highest percentage (56%) of hard news consumers.

Old subject . Stupid people have always justified their stupidity and evil via the written word ( the colonisation of America is based on crap words such as 'manifest destiny ' for example )
Wikepedia is part of that glorious written tradition .
Plus ça change , et plus c'est la même chose .

Teach your kids to think first .

Dare I ask what Wikipedia has to do with the colonization of America?

come on Ibram, get with it. americans are stupid, lazy, fuckers who are utterly unreliable. americans = wikipedia.

I am surprised that American teenagers such as our pet Ibram can still ask questions .

surprised AND DELIGHTED .

Pet?

I'm an active, positive, hopefully respected member here (I think...), and I resent being characterized as a pet.

Especially by a troll.

Keep close to me , and you will be ok .

...


...


...


...no thanks.

Well , I have always worried about that funny Islamic name you have .

Yes, you would, wouldnt you, you racist fuck?

I've used wikipedia to look for references for articles I've written. It's a good place to go and get a broad understanding and then move on to more formal documentation.

btw, there are lots of databases online where you can find info on just about any subject you care to research. Wikipedia is just one, and not an acknowledgable source for a bibliography.

I chose the second option because there is some very bogus information on the site in places.

I do not think that you should write articles , Aliantha . Yoy are not clever enough .

is it about time for buddug to go away now? cellarites have thick enough skin to deal with name calling, but personal attacks for race or religion are uncalled for.

I don't think you should voice your opinion Buddug. You are not nice enough.

crocodile jeeeeeeeeez .

You do seriously have a mental illness don't you? I mean, you just can't be real about some of the things you say. They're just not rational.

It is because of this that I have been less harsh with you than your comments warrant, and I suspect others here feel the same.

You should get some help. You need it. Seriously.

I'm thiiiiiiiiiiiis close to demanding that UT do something about it.

Of course I never take anything at face value.
 

I hope that was a joke wolf?

I didn't find any of that on a very thought out and comprehensive page.
If it was on any of the links it needs to be edited.Oh I know. That was YOUR SUBMISSION :p


WIKIPEDIA


Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 History
2.1 Pre-Christian origins of holiday
2.2 Christian origins of holiday
2.3 Medieval Christmas and related winter festivals
2.4 The Reformation and the 1800s
2.5 Modern times
3 The Nativity
4 Economics of Christmas
5 Santa Claus and other bringers of gifts
6 Christmas Tree and other decorations
7 Regional customs and celebrations
7.1 Social aspects and entertainment
7.2 Christmas carol media
8 Christmas in the arts and media
9 See also
10 References
11 External Links


Medieval Christmas and related winter festivals

Christmas soon outgrew the Christological controversy that created it and came to dominate the medieval calendar.

The forty days before Christmas became the "forty days of St. Martin," now Advent. Former Saturnalian traditions were attached to Advent. Around the 12th century, these traditions transferred again to the "twelve days of Christmas" (i.e. Christmas to Epiphany).[8]

The fortieth day after Christmas was Candlemas. The Egyptian Christmas celebration on January 6 was adopted as Epiphany, one of the most prominent holidays of the year during the Early Middle Ages. Christmas Day itself was a relatively minor holiday, although its prominence gradually increased after Charlemagne was crowned on Christmas Day in 800 AD.

Northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, and its pagan celebrations had a major influence on Christmas. Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul (Yule), originally the name of a twelve-day pre-Christian winter festival. Logs were lit to honor Thor, the god of thunder, hence the "Yule log." In Germany, the equivalent holiday is called Mitwinternacht (mid-winter night). There are also twelve Rauhnächte (harsh or wild nights).[9]

By the High Middle Ages, Christmas had become so prominent that chroniclers routinely noted where various magnates "celebrated Christmas." King Richard II of England hosted a Christmas feast in 1377 at which twenty-eight oxen and three hundred sheep were eaten.[8] The "Yule boar" was a common feature of medieval Christmas feasts. Caroling also became popular, and was originally a group of dancers who sang. The group was composed of a lead singer and a ring of dancers that provided the chorus. Various writers of the time condemned caroling as lewd, largely due to overtones reminiscent of the traditions of Saturnalia and Yule).[8] "Misrule" — drunkenness, promiscuity, gambling — was also an important aspect of the festival. In England, gifts were exchanged on New Year's Day, and there was special Christmas ale.[8]

[edit]
The Reformation and the 1800s

Santa Claus hands out gifts to Union soldiers during the US Civil War in Thomas Nast's first Santa Claus cartoon, Harper's Weekly, 1863.

During the Reformation, Protestants condemned Christmas celebration as "trappings of popery" and the "rags of the Beast". The Catholic Church responded by promoting the festival in a more religiously oriented form. When a Puritan parliament triumphed over the King, Charles I of England (1644), Christmas was officially banned (1647). Pro-Christmas rioting broke out in several cities. For several weeks, Canterbury was controlled by the rioters, who decorated doorways with holly and shouted royalist slogans.[10] The Restoration (1660) ended the ban, but Christmas celebration was still disapproved of by the Anglican clergy.

By the 1820s, sectarian tension had eased and British writers began to worry that Christmas was dying out. They imagined Tudor Christmas as a time of heartfelt celebration, and efforts were made to revive the holiday. The book A Christmas Carol (1843) by Charles Dickens played a major role in reinventing Christmas as a holiday emphasizing family, goodwill, and compassion (as opposed to communal celebration and hedonistic excess).[11]



ECT....ECT...



oh I see, wolfs being funny :blush:


This would be a case where you shouldn't trust...

For the record ... The screenshot that I posted is exactly what I got when I followed a link given to me by Google when I was searching for History of Christmas United States.

Trust Wikipedia?
 

The Wiki is pretty reliable for matters scientific and mathematical. Some articles are a trifle thin and could use beefing up. But I have not seen gross errors or falsehood in these areas


Bob Kolker

Welcome to the cellar, bobkolker. :D

[quote=Aliantha] It's a good place to go and get a broad understanding and then move on to more formal documentation.[quote]

I chose the third option and I think that really catches the why. I figure there's a lot of opining and repeated hearsay on wikipedia.

and some outright crap. :bogroll: :Flush:

It can get posted there, but does it stick?

I have to say, I've found Wiki to be pretty good on most historical stuff. I have been experimenting with it recently since this thread started: when I am researching a topic, I do my usual level of research using the suggested texts and other stuff I find in the library, then I go on wikipedia and see if it takes account of the various arguments and controversies over various interpretations. Thus far, I have found it to be good at pointing out in broad strokes those areas of controversy and debate and then giving suggestions for further reading which take account of this.

The third selection.

Americans are stupid huh?
That is why no one uses our technology for anything like pharmaceuticals, military, agriculture, they never come here to get educated, for medical research or procedures, we don't lead the world in space research and development... nope, nothin' wez just a bunch a' idjuits. :D
It kinda' bothers me that I'm enjoying laughing my ass off at you right now.
But, it is not really my fault, all the best humor is based in irony, you being an idiot and all.:p

i'm not sure if you missed the sarcasm in my post or if i'm missing the sarcasm in your post... eh - whatever.

I did not miss yours... you did miss mine, though it is serious for those to do feel that way; there are more than a few.

I see no reason why wikipedia is not trustworthy... especially given that the content posted there is monitored by a group of individuals committed to keeping it clean and reliable

Suuuuurrrrreeeee it is. I have seen some blatantly incorrect articles and information from there.

But then again, isn't blatantly incorrect better than very subtly incorrect?

I have found Wikipedia to be extremely useful in locating or pinning down events or people. It gets you into the ballpark, and by reading the entry you will learn enough to be able to discuss the subject with reasonable intelligence. HOWEVER: any resource which is written by the "public" is subject to the interpretations and biases and outright agendas of the writer, so you are well advised to cross-check any facts before quoting them in your own work. From personal experience, I know that the entries about the number of records sold by Thalia is absolutely false and unsupported by real data. I also know that former California congressman Richard Pombo, a real slimeball who we are well and joyfully rid of now, had many false and misleading statements on his own entry and those for subjects he has most famously meddled in (such as selling off the national forests to private interests), and that not even an hour after he was defeated he was trying to block changes on Wikipedia. Fortunately his adversaries were prepared in advance and blocked him from access. So no, I would not recomment Wikipedia as a sole resource, but it is a good point to start.