Welcome to the TechSpot OpenBoards. Please read the FAQ if you have any questions. Login to participate.

Go Back   TechSpot OpenBoards > TS Community > The Meeting 'spot' > Poll Station

Wikipedia. A fake encyclopedia?

View Poll Results: Is Wikipedia a fake encylopedia?
Yes. 5 19.23%
No. 21 80.77%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Bookmark / Share this page
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 01-15-2008
ShipMaster ShipMaster is offline
TechSpot Member
 
Member since: Dec 2007, 93 posts
Wikipedia. A fake encyclopedia?

I just want to gather people views on Wikipedia.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-16-2008
Nodsu's Avatar
Nodsu Nodsu is offline
TS Special Forces
 
Location: Estonia
Member since: Feb 2002, 9,430 posts
System specs
Yes/no is a bit harsh.. World isn't black and white you know. Also, which encyclopedia is "true"? They are all written by people and no one is all-knowing or unbiased.

I like to think of Wikipedia as hearsay. It is a good place to get background information and some "casual" facts, but I would never rely on it for anything related to business or education.

Would you believe some random guy on the street to incest your money or use him as a reference in your schoolwork? No! Well, these very same guys write Wikipedia.
Reply With Quote
You can remove this banner by registering, join the TS Community for free.
  #3  
Old 01-16-2008
Po`Girl's Avatar
Po`Girl Po`Girl is offline
TechSpot Booster
 
Location: London,England
Member since: Feb 2007, 667 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodsu
Would you believe some random guy on the street to incest your money
Incest is best,as they say.

But nearly seriously,Wiki has been proven to be about as accurate as Enylopaedia Brittanica,according to Nature magazine HERE

As long as people know what a Wiki is - 'can be edited by almost anyone' - then no problem.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-16-2008
AlbertLionheart's Avatar
AlbertLionheart AlbertLionheart is offline
TechSpot Guru
 
Location: UKkers
Member since: Jun 2007, 2,240 posts
System specs
I don't think the problem is that it can be edited by almost anyone, it's that there is no control over content. So long as you take the information with a pinch of salt and perhaps verify by checking elsewhere, Wiki has great value!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-16-2008
Nodsu's Avatar
Nodsu Nodsu is offline
TS Special Forces
 
Location: Estonia
Member since: Feb 2002, 9,430 posts
System specs
And some followups on that total Nature fiasco..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03..._nature_study/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03...ipedia_nature/

(Sorry, I only read IT news and CBA to look up more)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-16-2008
Po`Girl's Avatar
Po`Girl Po`Girl is offline
TechSpot Booster
 
Location: London,England
Member since: Feb 2007, 667 posts
Sometimes Wiki can reach a deeper truth,than any formal body of knowledge -




Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-16-2008
God Of Mana's Avatar
God Of Mana God Of Mana is offline
TechSpot Enthusiast
 
Location: ???
Member since: Aug 2007, 469 posts
System specs
Its free...free stuff are never really good, but wiki kinda passes the mark...its good, for a FREE encyclopedia.. (buy encarta)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-16-2008
Julio's Avatar
Julio Julio is offline
TechSpot Elite
 
Location: Ecuador
Member since: Feb 2002, 4,106 posts
System specs
I agree this shouldn't be a yes/no type of question. I love Wikipedia and have literally spent hours checking out content in that site in more than one occasion, however it's clear you should read knowing beforehand what the source of the content is and some criteria based on that same fact.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-16-2008
Julio's Avatar
Julio Julio is offline
TechSpot Elite
 
Location: Ecuador
Member since: Feb 2002, 4,106 posts
System specs
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Of Mana
Its free...free stuff are never really good, but wiki kinda passes the mark...its good, for a FREE encyclopedia.. (buy encarta)
Forgot to mention just that... A real encyclopedia VS. Wikipedia...

Sometimes it's not even apples to apples. Wikipedia is sometimes updated on the fly (for good or bad). But say I like the UFC and want to check details on previous events, champions, etc. Wiki has that info, a standard encyclopedia obviously doesn't. Another example is tennis, you can get a good grasp at statistics, tournament history and even trivia from a single site.
Reply With Quote
You can remove this banner by registering, join the TS Community for free.
  #10  
Old 01-16-2008
JimShady23's Avatar
JimShady23 JimShady23 is offline
TechSpot Booster
 
Location: Merrill, WI
Member since: Dec 2003, 624 posts
Fact Is

Fact is Wikipedia is a good database for research on general topics, a way to get familiar with somthing that you had no previous knowledge of which to tell you the truth is why we are using it to begin with. Are all the facts written legit ? Probably not, but it will give you the general idea. Should you take it to heart and incorperate it into a important school report ? No, of course not, the whole concept of a valuable researched based report is exactly that, research. If the information needed is that valuable cross reference the information with atleast 5 other reputable sources and make, through processing the fact of each source, a educated choice of the facts.

But when it comes down to it wikipedia is a valuable tool for general information search, even if all the information on said topic is not correct, most of it probably is and will give you a good basis to conduct further research.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-16-2008
captaincranky's Avatar
captaincranky captaincranky is offline
TechSpot Guru
 
Member since: Oct 2006, 2,028 posts
I Thought the Whole Quote Was........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Po`Girl
Incest is best,as they say.

But nearly seriously,Wiki has been proven to be about as accurate as Enylopaedia Brittanica,according to Nature magazine HERE

As long as people know what a Wiki is - 'can be edited by almost anyone' - then no problem.
"Candy's dandy, but incest is best"! (To the best of my recollection).

A lot of people take a lot of time, trouble, and effort into making Wikipedia a vast source of knowledge. As entries go, so go the contributers. Most people are honest, and consequently most of what you'll find on Wiki is factual. Many people write decent, useful, software, then make it available for the asking, free of charge. Some people write viruses and foist them off on you, any way they can.
"Caveat Emptor", (as they also say).

"Candy's dandy, but liquor is quicker"! I've also heard that tossed around.

Last edited by captaincranky; 01-16-2008 at 06:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-18-2008
fenderguy2112's Avatar
fenderguy2112 fenderguy2112 is offline
Newcomer, in training
 
Member since: Jan 2008, 32 posts
Wikipedia is amazing; but it has it's flaws... Google's "knol" will be edited wrongly just for laughs as well as wikipedia has been for day one.

FenderGuy2112
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-18-2008
God Of Mana's Avatar
God Of Mana God Of Mana is offline
TechSpot Enthusiast
 
Location: ???
Member since: Aug 2007, 469 posts
System specs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julio
Forgot to mention just that... A real encyclopedia VS. Wikipedia...

Sometimes it's not even apples to apples. Wikipedia is sometimes updated on the fly (for good or bad). But say I like the UFC and want to check details on previous events, champions, etc. Wiki has that info, a standard encyclopedia obviously doesn't. Another example is tennis, you can get a good grasp at statistics, tournament history and even trivia from a single site.
Hmm...your right..
but didn't they try to ban wikipedia in schools? LINK TO ARTICLE
Its a user based system. much like TS. It depends on people putting information on their own. (its of course looked over) but its a bit inaccurate.
But i like wiki, in fact, i have an account and have donated on 2 occasions.

PS: shouldn't you have edited you post julio? Just saying!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-18-2008
mscrx mscrx is offline
TechSpot Booster
 
Location: Germany
Member since: Aug 2006, 710 posts
System specs
I'd say wikipedia is good for quick and simple answers (sometimes more) but if it comes to more scientific stuff I'd better read twice and check back other sources.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-20-2008
MetalX's Avatar
MetalX MetalX is offline
TechSpot Maniac
 
Location: Hamilton, ON, CAN
Member since: Dec 2005, 1,591 posts
System specs
I love wikipedia... I use it all the time. But I do accept that it's not totally accurate. Doesn't mean I don't use it for school projects though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Of Mana
PS: shouldn't you have edited you post julio? Just saying!
OMG! Julio double posted. Shame.

(jk )
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-24-2008
LuckyM's Avatar
LuckyM LuckyM is offline
TechSpot Member
 
Member since: Oct 2007, 64 posts
i voted for no. well some facts are not quite right on wikipedia but try to edit some article and type stuff, and people will clean up the mess pretty soon. i mean it's quite reliable if you want some basic knowledge like what is Amphoe Khuan Kalong (i clicked on random article for this ).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fake warning. ciscoboy Security and the Web 1 08-16-2007 02:17 AM
Firefox and Wikipedia confused001 Misc. Software & Utilities 5 01-31-2007 10:03 AM
Fake crash alcarin2030 Audio and Video 1 07-28-2006 11:38 AM
TechSpot Wikipedia entry Julio Site Feedback & Suggestions 1 05-21-2006 12:06 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 PM.