Do you think that Wikipedia is a good source for information or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkirstyjay
Wikipedia is your friend
With no guarantee that any of the information on it is accurate. I prefer to avoid it.
__________________ Michael
(I am not now nor have I ever been a Sun reader!) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Location: Up a Mountain on the West Coast of Tenerife!
Gender:
Posts: 20,068
My Mood:
Well, the info on Armada Sur is accurate... I put it on
Anyway... you can say that about ANY website!!! (and newspaper... etc etc.)
Wikipedia generally has citations that back up any info so you can research it yourself.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Please add our To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your bookmarks. Should this one ever go down, you'll still have a place to chat until it's back up again To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well, the info on Armada Sur is accurate... I put it on
Anyway... you can say that about ANY website!!! (and newspaper... etc etc.)
Wikipedia generally has citations that back up any info so you can research it yourself.
True, but Wikipedia calls itself an enclyclopedia so I think people will take it for granted that the information on it is accurate and there's no guarantee of that.
On Radio 4 (yes I am that old) they interviewed a musician from a moderately successful now no more British band. He found info on Wikipedia about himself and the band which was inaccurate so he changed it. Next time he looked, someone had changed it back! He was able to contact the originator and get it rectified but had the person not been co-operative, it would have stayed as it was - wrong.
So I don't see the value of an 'enclycopedia' if you have to cross-check every 'fact' on it.
Perhaps this might make another thread?
__________________ Michael
(I am not now nor have I ever been a Sun reader!) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Location: Up a Mountain on the West Coast of Tenerife!
Gender:
Posts: 20,068
My Mood:
No sooner said, than done
In reply... couldn't he have contacted administration though and got it changed regardless?
I think it's a good start for any research you could be doing about a subject.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Please add our To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your bookmarks. Should this one ever go down, you'll still have a place to chat until it's back up again To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
In reply... couldn't he have contacted administration though and got it changed regardless?
I think it's a good start for any research you could be doing about a subject.
Quite possibly. I'm not that familiar with the mechanics of the thing. Basically the whole piece was pointing out the fallibility of Wikipedia and the fact that anyone can write anything about anybody or any thing and upload it.
The musician interviewed was less than impressed.
__________________ Michael
(I am not now nor have I ever been a Sun reader!) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Location: Up a Mountain on the West Coast of Tenerife!
Gender:
Posts: 20,068
My Mood:
I'm not surprised!
But my point was, that however falliable, the entire net can go into the same category, so it's important to check you facts with several sources anyway as nothing is 100%.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Please add our To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your bookmarks. Should this one ever go down, you'll still have a place to chat until it's back up again To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Encyclopedias very quickly become out-of-date so its good to have one that can be updated at any time. I have a childs encyclopedia at home that on the section on flight it says "Man may never reach the moon but hopefully one day will be able to cross the Atlantic"
(The four volumes are undated but there is no mention of the second world war and the first is refered to as the Great War so I guess around 1920)
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The Following User Says Thank You to mac For This Useful Post:
The problem with citations is that they give the impression that an article is well-researched, but this isn't necessarily so. Also, the author might not fully know where to research so the citation list may not represent the best collection of research material available. A further problem is that the author will have interpreted his/her list of cited sources ... and may not be best qualified, or sufficiently impartial, to do so. Compared with much information on the internet, though, Wikipedia seems to me to have a greater than average chance of being reliable.
Its own disclaimer reads:
Quote:
In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed
Always be wary of any one single source (in any medium–web, print, television or radio), or of multiple works that derive from a single source.
Where articles have references to external sources (whether online or not) read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says.
In all academic institutions, Wikipedia, along with most encyclopedias, is unacceptable as a major source for a research paper. Other encyclopedias, such as Britannica, have notable authors working for them and may be cited as a secondary source in most cases.
Last edited by Janet; 11th November 2007 at 01:42.
True, but Wikipedia calls itself an enclyclopedia so I think people will take it for granted that the information on it is accurate and there's no guarantee of that.
On Radio 4 (yes I am that old) they interviewed a musician from a moderately successful now no more British band. He found info on Wikipedia about himself and the band which was inaccurate so he changed it. Next time he looked, someone had changed it back! He was able to contact the originator and get it rectified but had the person not been co-operative, it would have stayed as it was - wrong.
So I don't see the value of an 'enclycopedia' if you have to cross-check every 'fact' on it.
Perhaps this might make another thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by macbee48
Quite possibly. I'm not that familiar with the mechanics of the thing. Basically the whole piece was pointing out the fallibility of Wikipedia and the fact that anyone can write anything about anybody or any thing and upload it.
The musician interviewed was less than impressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkirstyjay
I'm not surprised!
But my point was, that however falliable, the entire net can go into the same category, so it's important to check you facts with several sources anyway as nothing is 100%.
If the information you get isn't accurate and you know differently then update it! Wikki never says it's true anyhow.
I agree with Kirsty, It's a great point to start, as long as you're aware that all you read in print isn't true!
Location: Up a Mountain on the West Coast of Tenerife!
Gender:
Posts: 20,068
My Mood:
Exactly. The point is, to keep this in mind.... in the same way you would reading a newspaper.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Please add our To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your bookmarks. Should this one ever go down, you'll still have a place to chat until it's back up again To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Do you think that Wikipedia is a good source for information or not? 
(and newspaper... etc etc.)
Linear Mode
