Yes, it is possible to get wrong information from wikipedia. It is also possible to get wrong information fron encyclopedia Brittanica (which, interestingly enough, there is an article on incorrect information in it on wikipedia).
It doesn't matter if it's a "trusted opinion" if you know, for example, how and why popular quackery is bulls**t.
If two sources conflict, you should try to find out the possible reasons for the conflict.
What if the doctor said ear candling works, and I said it doesn't? Should he just go ahead and follow the doctor, even though I can explain how and why ear candling does not work?
But you have more than one source, you are not forced to only use one. Why can't you use both?
That is why, if you find two sources conflict, you check additional sources. With wikipedia, you have multiple people checking, and if in fact a source such as (a) is in disagreement with (b), you (and others) and check why that is and fix wikipedia to reflect that.
Everyone on wikipedia knows what they are getting into. You think someone is going to do a report on something using only wikipedia as a source? No, people will look at other sources, and if they find wikipedia to be wrong, they can change it. If they find that in fact something like encyclopedia Brittanica is wrong, they can make note of that and even edit in to explain why that is.
Wikipedians don't just use their own knowledge, they also check other sources. The "random collections of anonymous persons" could very well be getting their information from "experts".
Re:Constant Reorganization Gives The Illusion....
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
If a doctor told you ear candling works, what would you say? After all, he's an authority, and you're not.
I'd imagine they'd tell you if you asked them, one little e-mail should do...
Re:Constant Reorganization Gives The Illusion....
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I've written a little bit about the techniques psychics used to make it appear as if they are "psychic".
How, exactly, do I become an "expert" on that subject? Write a book? Get recognized by people? I simply contribute what I know. If I'm wrong, other people can correct me. But guess what, I'm not wrong...:P
My hobbies include science, philosophy, skepticism, pseudoscience, and basically knowledge.
How do I become an authority on "skepticism", or "pseudoscience", and who determines whether I am that authority? And even then, who determines the people that determine who is an authority?
If I were to write about the Harry Potter books, what kind of authority would I need? Would J.K. Rowling need to certify me? If I wanted to write about the history of the Star Wars saga, would I need a certification from Lucasfilms?
Your argument would be valid-- if wikipedia wasn't in constant peer review and written by many different people.
Why am I unable to write information on James Randi (www.randi.org), techniques psychics use to con people, etc, just because I'm 16? I've even included links to my sources.
Again, Brittanica itself has mistakes in it. Now, where were the "experts" then?
Don't make me laugh. You stated yourself that because of my age, I am incapable/should not be able to write for wikipedia, no matter what the content is.
Why, exactly, are you attacking -me-, and not whether what I write is correct or not?
It's not the fact that you are attacking me, it's the fact that you are saying I am not intellectually capable of writing a decent article (or even a correction!) for wikipedia, simply because of my age.
Also, you keep on talking about how I'm not an "expert". Are you saying that "experts" are never wrong?
Wikipedia has a list of some mistakes on brittanica. Why is wikipedians able to find these mistakes and not the "experts"?
I don't have a steady income. If I did, I would send at least 5 dollars.
I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head and telling them to donate. I'm saying if you have extra money to donate, then do so. If you're someone struggling with money, it's probably best that you don't.
That's a rather nice ad hominem-- because I'm 16, I'm instantly not capable of writing an encyclopedia-type article?
You don't even know what I've contributed. For your information, I've added some information about some video games (just for the hell of it), information on James Randi and the JREF, and a few other topics regarding psychics and how they scam people (such as "hot" and "cold reading").
Oh, and how many encyclopedias include information on those subjects...?
How is this flamebait? I support wikipedia, it's the people I'm arguing with who don't. I love information. I just don't like the emotional appeals that people make, saying "information [doesn't] want[s] to be free!". Information isn't a living thing. It doesn't want anything...
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm beginning to think many Slashdotters are raving anti-corporate lunatics (they think "money" means "business"). The mere mention of donating drives them crazy, yet they praise open source, which is very much like wiki? And then they like the idea of open source projects receiving funding?
That, or they're appalled they're being asked to donate to a service they use, rather than having to shell out cash for a "special" account. In that case, most slashdotters are diehard capitalists.
I know, but it's damn hard to tell. Maybe I was fooled. If anyone has more information, tell me. I don't follow SA on its boards very much, so I obviously miss some of the more inside things.
But I wouldn't be suprised at all if it wasn't, because I have seen a lot of similar projects make a lot of cash quick just from donations so they don't go under-- like Sharereactor.com.
However, when I look on SA it seems to be real-- that kind of political satire isn't SA's style.
Wikipedia is in constant peer review, if someone spots a mistake, they can fix it. If an edition of an encyclopedia has a mistake or something that turns out not to be true, the best YOU can do it white it out and fix the mistake yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is possible to get wrong information from wikipedia. It is also possible to get wrong information fron encyclopedia Brittanica (which, interestingly enough, there is an article on incorrect information in it on wikipedia).
That is why you NEVER use just one source..
It doesn't matter if it's a "trusted opinion" if you know, for example, how and why popular quackery is bulls**t.
If two sources conflict, you should try to find out the possible reasons for the conflict.
What if the doctor said ear candling works, and I said it doesn't? Should he just go ahead and follow the doctor, even though I can explain how and why ear candling does not work?
But you have more than one source, you are not forced to only use one. Why can't you use both?
That is why, if you find two sources conflict, you check additional sources. With wikipedia, you have multiple people checking, and if in fact a source such as (a) is in disagreement with (b), you (and others) and check why that is and fix wikipedia to reflect that.
Everyone on wikipedia knows what they are getting into. You think someone is going to do a report on something using only wikipedia as a source? No, people will look at other sources, and if they find wikipedia to be wrong, they can change it. If they find that in fact something like encyclopedia Brittanica is wrong, they can make note of that and even edit in to explain why that is.
Wikipedians don't just use their own knowledge, they also check other sources. The "random collections of anonymous persons" could very well be getting their information from "experts".
If a doctor told you ear candling works, what would you say? After all, he's an authority, and you're not.
I'd imagine they'd tell you if you asked them, one little e-mail should do...
Yes, I've written a little bit about the techniques psychics used to make it appear as if they are "psychic".
:P
How, exactly, do I become an "expert" on that subject? Write a book? Get recognized by people? I simply contribute what I know. If I'm wrong, other people can correct me. But guess what, I'm not wrong...
My hobbies include science, philosophy, skepticism, pseudoscience, and basically knowledge.
How do I become an authority on "skepticism", or "pseudoscience", and who determines whether I am that authority? And even then, who determines the people that determine who is an authority?
If I were to write about the Harry Potter books, what kind of authority would I need? Would J.K. Rowling need to certify me? If I wanted to write about the history of the Star Wars saga, would I need a certification from Lucasfilms?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encyclope dia
I don't see anything referring to "authority". You're just pulling shit out of your ass.
How do you determine authority? What, does it depend if X amount of people believe them to be telling the truth?
Especially when you don't have the language installed, then it comes in a lot of little block ascii
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
You seem to think that encyclopedias need some sort of certification. That's bullshit.
You focus more on the person than the accuracy of what is said.
I think I am qualified to write any article on things I am knowledgeable about.
I made the claim that people in high school are not qualified to write encyclopedia articles.
Take a wild guess who said that. Yes, that was YOU.
And how do you know that experts aren't writing for wikipedia?
Your argument would be valid-- if wikipedia wasn't in constant peer review and written by many different people.
Why am I unable to write information on James Randi (www.randi.org), techniques psychics use to con people, etc, just because I'm 16? I've even included links to my sources.
Again, Brittanica itself has mistakes in it. Now, where were the "experts" then?
Don't make me laugh. You stated yourself that because of my age, I am incapable/should not be able to write for wikipedia, no matter what the content is.
Why, exactly, are you attacking -me-, and not whether what I write is correct or not?
It's not the fact that you are attacking me, it's the fact that you are saying I am not intellectually capable of writing a decent article (or even a correction!) for wikipedia, simply because of my age.
Also, you keep on talking about how I'm not an "expert". Are you saying that "experts" are never wrong?
Wikipedia has a list of some mistakes on brittanica. Why is wikipedians able to find these mistakes and not the "experts"?
I don't have a steady income. If I did, I would send at least 5 dollars.
I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head and telling them to donate. I'm saying if you have extra money to donate, then do so. If you're someone struggling with money, it's probably best that you don't.
Yes, it is an ad hominem. It doesn't matter how much I know, or my reasoning skills, you think that my age is relevent to what I say.
Again, you have yet to comment on what I've written about. Why are you attacking me, and not what I've written?
And yes, I know the "good reason" for not including them: a lot of people don't know enough on the subjects to care.
Um, and why can't the wiki community "sponsor" them?
That's a rather nice ad hominem-- because I'm 16, I'm instantly not capable of writing an encyclopedia-type article?
You don't even know what I've contributed. For your information, I've added some information about some video games (just for the hell of it), information on James Randi and the JREF, and a few other topics regarding psychics and how they scam people (such as "hot" and "cold reading").
Oh, and how many encyclopedias include information on those subjects...?
You're an idiot.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. SA has a very particular type of humor, and I didn't spot any of that when they asked for donations.
How is this flamebait? I support wikipedia, it's the people I'm arguing with who don't. I love information. I just don't like the emotional appeals that people make, saying "information [doesn't] want[s] to be free!". Information isn't a living thing. It doesn't want anything...
If I had the money, I would donate.
I'm glad you could donate-- I, as a teenager, don't even have a job, so I'm very tight on cash. Also, Christmas drained me a bit as well :)
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm beginning to think many Slashdotters are raving anti-corporate lunatics (they think "money" means "business"). The mere mention of donating drives them crazy, yet they praise open source, which is very much like wiki? And then they like the idea of open source projects receiving funding?
That, or they're appalled they're being asked to donate to a service they use, rather than having to shell out cash for a "special" account. In that case, most slashdotters are diehard capitalists.
That's actually a good idea. Kind of like SETI@home, in some broad sense?
I know, but it's damn hard to tell. Maybe I was fooled. If anyone has more information, tell me. I don't follow SA on its boards very much, so I obviously miss some of the more inside things.
But I wouldn't be suprised at all if it wasn't, because I have seen a lot of similar projects make a lot of cash quick just from donations so they don't go under-- like Sharereactor.com.
However, when I look on SA it seems to be real-- that kind of political satire isn't SA's style.
And if its model is donation alone, what is wrong with that?
Wikipedia is in constant peer review, if someone spots a mistake, they can fix it. If an edition of an encyclopedia has a mistake or something that turns out not to be true, the best YOU can do it white it out and fix the mistake yourself.