We should stop using Wikipedia

[jc02005]

Hi everybody,
I think wikipedia is not a relevent or a reliable information site.Cause members of wikipedia can change a submit there own topics which might not contain the information we need.Please act now or later on when we need to act is is too late.......

[Martin Moser]

Oh God, he's found the "vote" function .... hock:

[Caballo]

Probably found it in wikipedia.........

[Caius Fabius]

uh, how can 'we' stop using something 'we' never started using? What real researcher would trust such a source? I remember forbidding it being used as a source to my students when it first came out. I hadn't imagined it would have gotten better, but then I haven't looked in a few years. :roll:

[Titus Petronicus Graccus]

Hi everybody,
I think wikipedia is not a relevent or a reliable information site.Cause members of wikipedia can change a submit there own topics which might not contain the information we need.Please act now or later on when we need to act is is too late.......

How ironic, seeing as how MANY of your posts quote wiki...
:lol:

[DanM]

My guide to using wikipedia,
If it has a "this article does not cite resources" message at the top, one of the categories at the bottom is "articles lacking resources", or it says "this section needs views from an expert tags before sections, don't trust it. I'm not saying that it makes it automaticaly untrue, but you should find anopther rescource.

[Jona Lendering]

My guide to using wikipedia,
If it has a "this article does not cite resources" message at the top, one of the categories at the bottom is "articles lacking resources", or it says "this section needs views from an expert tags before sections, don't trust it. I'm not saying that it makes it automaticaly untrue, but you should find anopther rescource.

I think you need to refine this a bit: if an article lacks references to RECENT literature, it stinks. Example: the article on Cyrus the Great, which is essentially hijacked by a group of Iranian nationalists, who want the great king to be some sort of enlightened despot (an idea that existed when the late shah ruled Iran) and remove all references to recent literature, which shows that Cyrus was not an illuminated ruler and perhaps not even an Iranian. The Wiki mechanism ensures that well-known knowledge supersedes the results of recent research.

[Theodosius the Great]

Another reason to avoid Wikipedia :

From this article : "The Romans knew how to make supple leather and tough leather (through boiling) for use as armor. " :roll:

~Theo

[muskitear]

Hi everybody,
I think wikipedia is not a relevent or a reliable information site.Cause members of wikipedia can change a submit there own topics which might not contain the information we need.Please act now or later on when we need to act is is too late.......

Beats the hell outa me blue.

Mike Carroll

[A_Volpe]

Wikipedia is fine. It's the content that people need to be aware of. Don't believe everything you read, esspecially if it lacks references and obvious research; and if the articles are poorly written, or worse, "copied and pasted" from other sources.

I think wikipedia is not a relevent or a reliable information site

Good for you....Then don't use it.

It's not Wikipedia's job to authenticate the content...The READER needs to do their checking of the sources...And they also have the power to properly edit that content if it's wrong if they so choose to. Readers also have the power to ignore the content entirely or just not use the site.

Why should one person shut down or ruin the program for everyone else just because you found an article you didn't like, or the author wrote something that doesn't conform to your opinion? What about that old adage "the pen is mightier than the sword"? You don't like what they wrote? Write something back...But please do the homework, too.

I use wikipedia all the time for a very quick reference, but I always check the sources and references cited. (and that usually involves looking at these things called Books, usually written decades before the wiki article was posted, by authors considered experts in their fields of study..And sometimes even their information gets 'updated' by new research and study done today)

[claudia crisis]

I have found Wikipedia to be an invaluable tool for checking the dates of births for candidates in our office "Dead Pool" list.

However, it is not always up to date on the dates of shuttling of their mortal coils tho :lol:


(Of course we're all working really hard - NOT! - Only when the boss walks in, & thankfully that's not too often)


Hilary

[NightHunter24]

Eh...I'd say that Wikipaedia may not be as reliable a source as many would like but it's a good idea in my book...hell! with all the information overhere and the knowledge some of the members pocess here I'd say that the fine people at this forum would be more than capable to take the Wikipaedia model and make a RAT-o-pedia of sorts.

It would sure make a fine project and a very close to accurate one at that.
Ambitious?...maybe...but attainable...lol

[Robert Vermaat]

(Of course we're all working really hard - NOT! - Only when the boss walks in, & thankfully that's not too often)

Watch out using Wiki at work! My boss has a program with which he can see if any of us changed anything on Wiki While at Work! :x

[Licinus Castus Germanicus]

There are some good things with it but you have to be discerning with the issues. Does it provide a good base line yes but as mentioned it is a good tool but not everything is the gospel

[Nathan Beal]

Another reason to avoid Wikipedia :

From this article : "The Romans knew how to make supple leather and tough leather (through boiling) for use as armor. " :roll:

~Theo

Fixed.

Now i am not hugely keen on Wikipedia for this type of material, it's too specialist (and contentious) a field to not be subject to peer review. However part of the beauty is that if you don't like something change it.

Sign up for an account, edit the discussion page with proposed changes, wait a bit and do it. Of course somebody could just do a mass revert or edit your material back but unless it's somebody's pet page (this one looks like it's a straight translation from a French original) that's unlikely.

N.