💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 325.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:46:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

wikipedia drawback

2007-10-11 13:22:50

Re:Wikiphobia

(Score:5, Informative)

by Aladrin (926209) on Thursday October 11, @10:17AM (#20939497)

I avoid it for another reason. I tend to enter into debates with others online,

and if they don't say 'and don't cite wikipedia' beforehand, then they say it

afterwards. The knowledge there is totally useless in a debate simply because

it can be edited by anyone, regardless of what they actually know. Now, I use

it as a last resort to look for information that might lead me to something a

little more substantial.

Unfortunately, I can't even argue with them because it says things like

"However, extreme summer humidity often boosts the heat index to around 110 F

(43 C)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami,_Florida [wikipedia.org] Try as I

might, I could find no information on historic heat indexes in Miami on the

web. The best I could find was high-low temperature and humidity charts, and

since the heat index deals with the temperature and humidity at any given

moment, it isn't very useful for calculating the heat index after the fact.

Especially if you want to find out how often it hits 110.

Just about everything I've looked up on Wikipedia in the last month has been

someone's personal view with no facts to sustain it. As a starting point for

research, I can't even say it's a good idea because things are stated as fact

that are personal observation (anecdotes) or opinion, and that can quickly

taint your view of whatever you are searching and lead you down a bad path.

Posted: 2007775@825.04

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

stranger

Re:It's accuracy, on the other hand

(Score:5, Interesting)

by Applekid (993327) on Thursday October 11, @10:19AM (#20939553)

Thing is, dishonest articles and misleading text won't get fixed. I gave up

contributing to Wikipedia when I had my editing slammed left and right from

"regulars" selectively applying rules in order to shut out the unpopular. "No

original research" only applies when your assertions are against consensus,

regardless of how accurate, "You don't own the article" only applies if you're

outnumbered by a bunch of others that do own the article, "Bias" only when

you're striving for uniformity.

I mean, I'm not even talking about abortion or rape or anything... look at the

fight over "XOR" vs. "Exclusive-OR". Sheesh.

[wikitruth.info] has some info... but don't take

it's word on it. Give editing Wikipedia a shot and see the shitstorm it can

raise.

Posted: 2007775@836.60

stranger

I partly blame the "validators"

(Score:5, Interesting)

by Kinwolf (945345) on Thursday October 11, @10:23AM (#20939605)

Personally, I stopped adding contribution when two articles I wrote(about 2

comic books series that where published by Dark Horse years ago)where marked

for deletion. When I asked why, the validator answered that he did a google

search and found nothing on the subject, so it was not worthy of being there.

So there you have it, if it's not on google, it does not exist and has no

business being in an encyclopedia where knowledge is supposed to be kept. With

such an attitude, I saw no reason to continue adding stuff there.

Posted: 2007775@838.62

stranger

Re:I partly blame the "validators"

(Score:5, Informative)

by i kan reed (749298) on Thursday October 11, @12:26PM (#20941513)

Here's the problem... If it cannot be found by google and you(the original

creator of the article) do not give print references that can be verified by

other means... there's no evidence that what you're saying is not made up.

Sure, longtime wikipedia editors are not trusting, but dealing with the number

of advertisement and vanity articles(such as people who write articles about a

"comic strip" they "published" in a high school newspaper for 2 months. You

can't just take some anonymous person on the internet's word for things or else

some of the other major objections with wikipedia(bad fact checking, etc) will

be borne out. Get some ISBNs and try a lexisnexus search for the comic. Learn

to use wikipedia's citation system before creating your first article. This is

the advice I give to everyone who gets their pet topic article on wikipedia

deleted. Try it. It works.

Posted: 2007775@849.57

stranger

Re:There's nothing left that wikki doesn't know!

(Score:5, Insightful)

by ultranova (717540) on Thursday October 11, @01:00PM (#20941985)

Thats because there's nothing left that wikki doesn't know!

Of course there are, many things. However, the Wikipedia editors have, in their

blind rush to become a "real" encyclopedia, put up barriers of "notability". In

practice this means that articles often get deleted if the editor doesn't

consider them important ("notable").

Dead-tree encyclopedias have a bar of notability because they have limited size

and primitive searching facilities (alphapetical order), so a non-notable

article takes space which could be better used on something more important,

while increasing the size makes the whole thing more expensive and harder to

search. Wikipedia has in practice limitless size and advanced searching

facilities (internal links and full text search), so adding an article always

adds value.

There is the fundamental difference between online and dead-tree encyclopedias;

it is a pity Wikipedia hasn't quite grasped this.