We should stop using Wikipedia

[Salvianus]

It comes up with most Google searches, so I sometimes look at it to get ideas to start a more targeted search but, obviously, one cannot rely on Wiki: if I know enough to assess the validity of the references, I usually have better sources myself.

I improved some articles originally, but don't have the time to maintain those improvements against opinionated axe grinders who enjoy deleting relevant references to make way for biased pontification clearly against the writing guidelines (I should say open minded weapon-smiths have never caused me any trouble).

[Robert Vermaat]

I think the trick is improving the smaller, more technical articles. Don't try to improve 'the Roman army' or something like that, go for 'the scutum', or maybe even a smaller item (clothing or personal posessions of the soldiers) that you can keep track of, that aren't as 'popular' as the big pages and thereofre wil attrack less loonies.

[Winter]

I don't know about other universities but Wiki is already outlawed as a source here at the University of Wisconsin.

I have on occasion used it in order to find a direction to persue when researching a topic I know nothing about.

[Salvianus]

Certainly, it's not a 'source' and should never be relied upon or, heaven forfend, cited, but it can get you started in a field you know nothing about, giving you the terms to search for more consistent & reliable internet sites, some of which cite actual sources.

Few fora I have seen are as critical of evidence as this one.

Another phenomenon of the data revolution is that plenty of badly researched pap is out there on paper: outdated, shoddy, biased or refuted material lurks on the second hand shelves and GoogleBooks: in lieu of an academic community to filter out the sweepings, an active 'virtual' community willing to question published authors can help separate the chaff from the wheat.

The fundamental dichotomy of Wikipedia is that the aspiration is to create a reference work which can be re-written with no justification, on any pretext by any idiot. The primary characterisitc of a reference work is to be reliable.

How popular would surgery be at a hospital that prepped the patient and then asked the first passerby on the street to start cutting?

I think it would do more good in the world if Wikipedia devoted the space and time to something creative rather than reductive: concensus-based poetry, art, fiction, music, film, theology, philosophy, social policy or economics. Anything which was essentially made-up rather than laid-down :wink:

[Winter]

But Wiki usually does have some good pics!

[Eleatic Guest]

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.

Hijacking Wikpedia articles is really a problem because the side which has more time and energy ressources (usually the numerically larger one) will ultimately determine the thrust and contents of the article. And discussions on talk page are, when all is said and done, in the end mere voting mechanisms thinly veiled as "reaching consensus".

Since I am editing in WP, I have adopted an attitude which does not accept any fact at Wikipedia, unless proven elsewhere. WP can only provide preliminary, provisional 'facts' as first step for research elsewhere.

[Aurelius Malleolus]

Hi, everyone! I'm new here. Wiki - it's a good thing, but in our country we are never using it. We prefer to use articles,books, researchers of scientists. Pics - we have any what we need from other sources and prefer to use first sources or museum pics
But its about our country.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

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

Well, they did use it for helmets apparently. See the reconstituted 'Macedonian Phalanx' with leather/oxhide helmets..... :wink: