Why can't Wikipedia be used as a source of information? - GoFuckYourself.com

Jakez · 12-13-2011, 03:27 PM

Yes it is mostly created by anyone and everyone. But isn't it a collection of information put together to be as accurate as possible by those who know most about the subject? If it can't be trusted on a certain topic then what can? A book written by just one persons point of view? If a professor edited an artical to be more accurate is there no way for his information to overrule something written by Joe Shmoe or at least be edited to be correct by others?

RonTheDon · 12-13-2011, 03:48 PM

The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to provide accurate information. It's goal is to help point people in the right direction by providing them with ways to narrow down the information they are looking to find.

Each entry has a reference. If something isn't accurate, someone can change it. It's a living document, per-se.

Jakez · 12-13-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonTheDon

The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to provide accurate information. It's goal is to help point people in the right direction by providing them with ways to narrow down the information they are looking to find.

Each entry has a reference. If something isn't accurate, someone can change it. It's a living document, per-se.

Yes. I see it's purpose as summarizing each reference for quick reading. But who is to say the reference is factual?

raymor · 12-13-2011, 03:59 PM

Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as a source because it's not a source. No new information appears first on wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia). It's a collection of second hand abstracts. Encyclopedias get there information from somewhere. That somewhere is the source.

What's the difference? Try playing the telephone game sometime and you'll see why. Ray Morris include in a report that based on his analysis of 1,00,000 hits, 48% of porn surfers on gay sites used IE at least part of the time. The next day someone who read the report will post on GFY that most people on gay porn sites use IE. Someone will read that and later post on wikipedia that most IE users are gay.
What the source said and what was put on wikipedia are not the same.

raymor · 12-13-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakez

Yes. I see it's purpose as summarizing each reference for quick reading. But who is to say the reference is factual?

That's why you have to check both the reference and the context within the reference for schilarly work. If the reference is Fred Phelps, you don't trust him even if someone puts a Phelps quote on wikipedia.

Jakez · 12-13-2011, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as a source because it's not a source. No new information appears first on wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia). It's a collection of second hand abstracts. Encyclopedias get there information from somewhere. That somewhere is the source.

What's the difference? Try playing the telephone game sometime and you'll see why. Ray Morris include in a report that based on his analysis of 1,00,000 hits, 48% of porn surfers on gay sites used IE at least part of the time. The next day someone who read the report will post on GFY that most people on gay porn sites use IE. Someone will read that and later post on wikipedia that most IE users are gay.
What the source said and what was put on wikipedia are not the same.

Heh that's a good point.

Is there no editing on Wikipedia by people with first hand knowledge of something? Everything has to have a source to link to?

epitome · 12-13-2011, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as a source because it's not a source. No new information appears first on wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia). It's a collection of second hand abstracts. Encyclopedias get there information from somewhere. That somewhere is the source.

What's the difference? Try playing the telephone game sometime and you'll see why. Ray Morris include in a report that based on his analysis of 1,00,000 hits, 48% of porn surfers on gay sites used IE at least part of the time. The next day someone who read the report will post on GFY that most people on gay porn sites use IE. Someone will read that and later post on wikipedia that most IE users are gay.
What the source said and what was put on wikipedia are not the same.

Hopefully nobody would be that dumb. Gays tend to adopt new technology pretty quickly.

/threadjack

porno jew · 12-13-2011, 04:07 PM

think studies have shown it to be more or less as accurate as traditional encyclopedias. like anything, read critically, be aware of bias and check sources.

RonTheDon · 12-13-2011, 04:08 PM

If you Google search wikipedia mistakes, you'll find some funny ones. ;)

Don't forget to tell people you attended WU (Wikipedia University).

wehateporn · 12-13-2011, 04:10 PM

Wikipedia Is A Pro-Obama, Tax-Exempt Scam, Senate Candidate Andy Martin, a U.S. senate Candidate Claims

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_396003.html

porno jew · 12-13-2011, 04:14 PM

Andy Martin's Wikipedia entry describes him as a "vexatious litigant" and "perennial candidate." The entry notes that he asserts that "Obama's real father is not Barack Obama Sr., but is Frank Marshall Davis, an African American journalist of the 1950s."

sounds legit.

wehateporn · 12-13-2011, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

Andy Martin's Wikipedia entry describes him as a "vexatious litigant" and "perennial candidate." The entry notes that he asserts that "Obama's real father is not Barack Obama Sr., but is Frank Marshall Davis, an African American journalist of the 1950s."

sounds legit.

I'm wondering which of them threw the first punch

Jakez · 12-13-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

think studies have shown it to be more or less as accurate as traditional encyclopedias. like anything, read critically, be aware of bias and check sources.

Ok, critique it, based on your own thinking. Be aware of any bias, fair enough. Check sources, who is to say the sources are accurate? I guess this could go into some deep debate about what sources of history are accurate.. I see Wikipedia as just a summary of accurate data.

People will believe someone who studies encyclopedias all their life but Wikipedia can't be used the same?

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

Andy Martin's Wikipedia entry describes him as a "vexatious litigant" and "perennial candidate."

Not familiar with the person but maybe that is accurate? Or is there no one close to him that could fix that erroneous information?

And how does Wikipedia rank their word over some random person? Maybe this is the problem.

porno jew · 12-13-2011, 04:20 PM

andy is welcome to stick with conservapedia if he doesn't like wikipedia or start his own version.

http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

http://conservapedia.com/Jesus

http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

porno jew · 12-13-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakez

People will believe someone who studies encyclopedias all their life but Wikipedia can't be used the same?

who is saying this? some neckbeard on the internet?

wehateporn · 12-13-2011, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

andy is welcome to stick with conservapedia if he doesn't like wikipedia or start his own version.

http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

http://conservapedia.com/Jesus

http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

http://www.wikicountability.org/

Rove Group Launches Anti-Obama Wiki

One of the country's largest and most powerful pro-Republican advocacy groups with ties to Karl Rove has launched an online clearinghouse for internal Obama administration documents to expose what it says is a failure by the president to be as transparent and open as promised.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/healt...ry?id=13202388

porno jew · 12-13-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakez

Not familiar with the person but maybe that is accurate? Or is there no one close to him that could fix that erroneous information?

And how does Wikipedia rank their word over some random person? Maybe this is the problem.

go familiarize yourself with the posting and editing rules.

there have been efforts to have similar sites with experts in the verification chain but no idea what happen top them.

Jakez · 12-13-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

who is saying this? some neckbeard on the internet?

I don't know where these jeopardy people get their information lol. Just saying that the people or things used as sources have to get their information from somewhere too, who is to say that info is even accurate?

Barry-xlovecam · 12-13-2011, 04:31 PM

I think Wikipedia is more accurate than most media -- the fact that it is user-edited removes a lot of agenda.

I cite it the same as any dictionary or encyclopedia with similar authority. It's more credible than the crackpottimes.com or youtube.com ...

Operator · 12-13-2011, 04:32 PM

It's a lying thieving mess of propaganda.

Jakez · 12-13-2011, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I think Wikipedia is more accurate than most media -- the fact that it is user-edited removes a lot of agenda.

I cite it the same as any dictionary or encyclopedia with similar authority. It's more credible than the crackpottimes.com or youtube.com ...

That's what I'm saying. It's a collection of data by the masses formed as accurate as possible. If someone edits something with some bogus info then it will surely be changed by someone in the know soon, or not accepted at all. Unless the particular page doesn't see many views, then it could take a while lol. I'm mostly talking about important historical information that is in it, not some entry about a celeb falling down or some shit.

Of course the general population can be convinced that some false information is accurate, and that will be inserted into Wikipedia. But the same can be said for all of the text books that teach our world what they know.

12-13-2011, 03:27 PM	#1
Jakez Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: oddfuturewolfgangkillthemall!!!!!!! Posts: 5,656	Why can't Wikipedia be used as a source of information? Yes it is mostly created by anyone and everyone. But isn't it a collection of information put together to be as accurate as possible by those who know most about the subject? If it can't be trusted on a certain topic then what can? A book written by just one persons point of view? If a professor edited an artical to be more accurate is there no way for his information to overrule something written by Joe Shmoe or at least be edited to be correct by others? __________________ [email protected] - jakezdumb - 573689400 Killuminati

12-13-2011, 03:48 PM	#2
RonTheDon Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: United States Posts: 69	The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to provide accurate information. It's goal is to help point people in the right direction by providing them with ways to narrow down the information they are looking to find. Each entry has a reference. If something isn't accurate, someone can change it. It's a living document, per-se. __________________ ICQ: 609051050

12-13-2011, 03:59 PM	#4
raymor Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,745	Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as a source because it's not a source. No new information appears first on wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia). It's a collection of second hand abstracts. Encyclopedias get there information from somewhere. That somewhere is the source. What's the difference? Try playing the telephone game sometime and you'll see why. Ray Morris include in a report that based on his analysis of 1,00,000 hits, 48% of porn surfers on gay sites used IE at least part of the time. The next day someone who read the report will post on GFY that most people on gay porn sites use IE. Someone will read that and later post on wikipedia that most IE users are gay. What the source said and what was put on wikipedia are not the same. __________________ For historical display only. This information is not current: support@bettercgi.com ICQ 7208627 Strongbox - The next generation in site security Throttlebox - The next generation in bandwidth control Clonebox - Backup and disaster recovery on steroids

12-13-2011, 04:08 PM	#9
RonTheDon Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: United States Posts: 69	If you Google search wikipedia mistakes, you'll find some funny ones. ;) Don't forget to tell people you attended WU (Wikipedia University). __________________ ICQ: 609051050

12-13-2011, 04:10 PM	#10
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	Wikipedia Is A Pro-Obama, Tax-Exempt Scam, Senate Candidate Andy Martin, a U.S. senate Candidate Claims http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_396003.html __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

12-13-2011, 04:07 PM	#8
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	think studies have shown it to be more or less as accurate as traditional encyclopedias. like anything, read critically, be aware of bias and check sources.

12-13-2011, 04:14 PM	#11
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	Andy Martin's Wikipedia entry describes him as a "vexatious litigant" and "perennial candidate." The entry notes that he asserts that "Obama's real father is not Barack Obama Sr., but is Frank Marshall Davis, an African American journalist of the 1950s." sounds legit.

12-13-2011, 04:20 PM	#14
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	andy is welcome to stick with conservapedia if he doesn't like wikipedia or start his own version. http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality http://conservapedia.com/Jesus http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

12-13-2011, 04:31 PM	#19
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	I think Wikipedia is more accurate than most media -- the fact that it is user-edited removes a lot of agenda. I cite it the same as any dictionary or encyclopedia with similar authority. It's more credible than the crackpottimes.com or youtube.com ...

12-13-2011, 04:32 PM	#20
Operator So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: May 2009 Location: ΠπΠ Posts: 2,419	It's a lying thieving mess of propaganda.