One thing I am getting tired of hearing is people completely disregarding evidence on the mere fact that it's from wikipedia. Certainly, I too am an opponent of lazy researching (even though I tend to do it more often than not), but can anyone give me a strong argument as to why wikipedia should not be a valid source?
The Credibility of Wikipedia
- Thread starter noex1337
- Start date
Time To Play The GAME
You're kidding right? Noex, are you sure wanna play this game? :badass:
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, anywhere in the world, at anytime. Anyone can edit what is written on Wikipedia so no one can logically believe that what they have is complete untainted research. Suppose for example a person needs to know the boiling point of water. They go on Wikipedia to find out. Of course anyone can edit actual research, put their own spin on it, and pass it off as the truth. Worse still you get millions of people who use Wikipedia for research and they're going around with a dangerous idea that they are knowledgeable in an area in which they actually maintain the same level of ignorance they had prior to hitting up Wikipedia for more information.
Using wikis is not only lazy but it's an asinine way to prove a point because a person can't actually know if what they have is actual scientific TRUTH handed down by a university/institution, or some idiot who's trying to kill an afternoon. Wikipedia is the bane of true research popularized by people too limited to go to a library, or a reputable website. Government sites, medical sites, and university websites offer actual research done by actual teams which have gone through extensive scientific tests and re-examination. Wikis..., not so much.
And sure we all know that Wikis tend to have citations but that irrelevant to the true scholar. Why? Because those citations are only there to perpetuate the stereotype that Wikipedia yields real research, it's just been simplified. Your move dear friend.
Play my music.
[YOUTUBE]jTWtdyt0ME0[/YOUTUBE]
You're kidding right? Noex, are you sure wanna play this game? :badass:
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, anywhere in the world, at anytime. Anyone can edit what is written on Wikipedia so no one can logically believe that what they have is complete untainted research. Suppose for example a person needs to know the boiling point of water. They go on Wikipedia to find out. Of course anyone can edit actual research, put their own spin on it, and pass it off as the truth. Worse still you get millions of people who use Wikipedia for research and they're going around with a dangerous idea that they are knowledgeable in an area in which they actually maintain the same level of ignorance they had prior to hitting up Wikipedia for more information.
Using wikis is not only lazy but it's an asinine way to prove a point because a person can't actually know if what they have is actual scientific TRUTH handed down by a university/institution, or some idiot who's trying to kill an afternoon. Wikipedia is the bane of true research popularized by people too limited to go to a library, or a reputable website. Government sites, medical sites, and university websites offer actual research done by actual teams which have gone through extensive scientific tests and re-examination. Wikis..., not so much.
And sure we all know that Wikis tend to have citations but that irrelevant to the true scholar. Why? Because those citations are only there to perpetuate the stereotype that Wikipedia yields real research, it's just been simplified. Your move dear friend.
Play my music.
[YOUTUBE]jTWtdyt0ME0[/YOUTUBE]
Ahhh, it's Zero I get. Well, first off, this isn't 2001, when wikipedia was first founded. It's been 10 years since then, and wikipedia has developed a complex system of defending against random changes to protect against erroneous information. Furthermore, many of the more important pages on wikipedia are locked so that random users are not able to contribute anything to the page. For example, let's just say that I wanted to convince the average american that gravity does not exist and was just invented by the illuminati. I could just go to the page and edit it right? Well, I actually tried that, and guess what? There's no way for me to edit that page. Evidence here, try for yourself. The same is true for most scientific pages. Furthermore, even if you are not sure, sources exist so that you are able to check the validity of the information. Most wikipedia articles have inline citations so that you can know the exact source that information comes from. So between those two points, I think it is quite credible.
Also, food for thought. This year, IBM created watson and had it compete on jeopardy as both a field test for the AI's ability to understand speech and as an advertising ploy. That machine beat both the longest reigning champion Ken Jennings and The biggest all-time winner on the show Brad Rutter. The machine was not connected to the internet so all the information it had access to was stored on its harddrive. Are you interested in knowing what was on there? "Watson had access to 200 million pages of structured and unstructured content consuming four terabytes of disk storage, including the full text of Wikipedia". Did you catch that? THE FULL TEXT OF WIKIPEDIA! I'm sorry, but if IBM thinks wikipedia is good enough for their advanced AI system, shouldn't that say something?
BTW, the source of that quote is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_%28artificial_intelligence_software%29 . From now on, all data I will use in this thread will come from wikipedia, just to make a point (and also for the lulz).
Also, food for thought. This year, IBM created watson and had it compete on jeopardy as both a field test for the AI's ability to understand speech and as an advertising ploy. That machine beat both the longest reigning champion Ken Jennings and The biggest all-time winner on the show Brad Rutter. The machine was not connected to the internet so all the information it had access to was stored on its harddrive. Are you interested in knowing what was on there? "Watson had access to 200 million pages of structured and unstructured content consuming four terabytes of disk storage, including the full text of Wikipedia". Did you catch that? THE FULL TEXT OF WIKIPEDIA! I'm sorry, but if IBM thinks wikipedia is good enough for their advanced AI system, shouldn't that say something?
BTW, the source of that quote is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_%28artificial_intelligence_software%29 . From now on, all data I will use in this thread will come from wikipedia, just to make a point (and also for the lulz).
I am the game and I want you to play.
Really? Really? That's it?! :shrug:
[quote name='noex1337']Ahhh, it's Zero I get. Well, first off, this isn't 2001, when wikipedia was first founded. It's been 10 years since then, and wikipedia has developed a complex system of defending against random changes to protect against erroneous information. Furthermore, many of the more important pages on wikipedia are locked so that random users are not able to contribute anything to the page. For example, let's just say that I wanted to convince the average american that gravity does not exist and was just invented by the illuminati. I could just go to the page and edit it right? Well, I actually tried that, and guess what? There's no way for me to edit that page. Evidence here, try for yourself. The same is true for most scientific pages. Furthermore, even if you are not sure, sources exist so that you are able to check the validity of the information. Most wikipedia articles have inline citations so that you can know the exact source that information comes from. So between those two points, I think it is quite credible.[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant. So what if a "random user" can't edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia can still be edited by people who are not credible. People can still put false information on Wikipedia which leads others to believe that what they have is concrete research when it is not. If eight million people go on Wikipedia and say 100,000 of those users have the authorization, clearance, what have you to edit it's contents then the information is not credible.
[quote name='noex1337']Also, food for thought. This year, IBM created watson and had it compete on jeopardy as both a field test for the AI's ability to understand speech and as an advertising ploy. That machine beat both the longest reigning champion Ken Jennings and The biggest all-time winner on the show Brad Rutter. The machine was not connected to the internet so all the information it had access to was stored on its harddrive. Are you interested in knowing what was on there? "Watson had access to 200 million pages of structured and unstructured content consuming four terabytes of disk storage, including the full text of Wikipedia". Did you catch that? THE FULL TEXT OF WIKIPEDIA! I'm sorry, but if IBM thinks wikipedia is good enough for their advanced AI system, shouldn't that say something?[/QUOTE]
That's a marketing decision Noex. IBM knows that Wikipedia is one of the most frequented sites on the net. They know that any kind of exposure to Wikipedia's HUGE audience is good exposure for them. If they're trying to pop a new product for the consumers or even the corporations then they know how to reach them. Do not confuse IBM's marketing ploy with Wikipedia's credibility for it has little thereof.
[quote name='noex1337']BTW, the source of that quote is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(artificial_intelligence_software) . From now on, all data I will use in this thread will come from wikipedia, just to make a point (and also for the lulz).[/QUOTE]
Lol, I rest my case.
Really? Really? That's it?! :shrug:
[quote name='noex1337']Ahhh, it's Zero I get. Well, first off, this isn't 2001, when wikipedia was first founded. It's been 10 years since then, and wikipedia has developed a complex system of defending against random changes to protect against erroneous information. Furthermore, many of the more important pages on wikipedia are locked so that random users are not able to contribute anything to the page. For example, let's just say that I wanted to convince the average american that gravity does not exist and was just invented by the illuminati. I could just go to the page and edit it right? Well, I actually tried that, and guess what? There's no way for me to edit that page. Evidence here, try for yourself. The same is true for most scientific pages. Furthermore, even if you are not sure, sources exist so that you are able to check the validity of the information. Most wikipedia articles have inline citations so that you can know the exact source that information comes from. So between those two points, I think it is quite credible.[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant. So what if a "random user" can't edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia can still be edited by people who are not credible. People can still put false information on Wikipedia which leads others to believe that what they have is concrete research when it is not. If eight million people go on Wikipedia and say 100,000 of those users have the authorization, clearance, what have you to edit it's contents then the information is not credible.
[quote name='noex1337']Also, food for thought. This year, IBM created watson and had it compete on jeopardy as both a field test for the AI's ability to understand speech and as an advertising ploy. That machine beat both the longest reigning champion Ken Jennings and The biggest all-time winner on the show Brad Rutter. The machine was not connected to the internet so all the information it had access to was stored on its harddrive. Are you interested in knowing what was on there? "Watson had access to 200 million pages of structured and unstructured content consuming four terabytes of disk storage, including the full text of Wikipedia". Did you catch that? THE FULL TEXT OF WIKIPEDIA! I'm sorry, but if IBM thinks wikipedia is good enough for their advanced AI system, shouldn't that say something?[/QUOTE]
That's a marketing decision Noex. IBM knows that Wikipedia is one of the most frequented sites on the net. They know that any kind of exposure to Wikipedia's HUGE audience is good exposure for them. If they're trying to pop a new product for the consumers or even the corporations then they know how to reach them. Do not confuse IBM's marketing ploy with Wikipedia's credibility for it has little thereof.
[quote name='noex1337']BTW, the source of that quote is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(artificial_intelligence_software) . From now on, all data I will use in this thread will come from wikipedia, just to make a point (and also for the lulz).[/QUOTE]
Lol, I rest my case.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
Irrelevant. So what if a "random user" can't edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia can still be edited by people who are not credible. People can still put false information on Wikipedia which leads others to believe that what they have is concrete research when it is not. If eight million people go on Wikipedia and say 100,000 of those users have the authorization, clearance, what have you to edit it's contents then the information is not credible.
[/QUOTE]
The only people who can edit closed pages are system administrators. Now are you saying that wikipedia has 100,000 administrators?
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
That's a marketing decision Noex. IBM knows that Wikipedia is one of the most frequented sites on the net. They know that any kind of exposure to Wikipedia's HUGE audience is good exposure for them. If they're trying to pop a new product for the consumers or even the corporations then they know how to reach them. Do not confuse IBM's marketing ploy with Wikipedia's credibility for it has little thereof.
[/QUOTE]
It's more than a marketing decision. You can't win jeopardy using fallacious information, so the mere fact that watson won should say something about the credibility of the source. But it's obvious that you know nothing about the watson project so look into it for a bit, because it seems you are a bit ignorant. Watson is not a new product for customers or developers. Watson was created by their R&D department, similar to deep blue in 1997. Sure, it could have commercial applications, but that's not the main goal. Besides, if they were only looking for exposure, why would they go on jeopardy? Nobody watches that anymore.
More random comments: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Defenses_against_undesirable_edits
Irrelevant. So what if a "random user" can't edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia can still be edited by people who are not credible. People can still put false information on Wikipedia which leads others to believe that what they have is concrete research when it is not. If eight million people go on Wikipedia and say 100,000 of those users have the authorization, clearance, what have you to edit it's contents then the information is not credible.
[/QUOTE]
The only people who can edit closed pages are system administrators. Now are you saying that wikipedia has 100,000 administrators?
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
That's a marketing decision Noex. IBM knows that Wikipedia is one of the most frequented sites on the net. They know that any kind of exposure to Wikipedia's HUGE audience is good exposure for them. If they're trying to pop a new product for the consumers or even the corporations then they know how to reach them. Do not confuse IBM's marketing ploy with Wikipedia's credibility for it has little thereof.
[/QUOTE]
It's more than a marketing decision. You can't win jeopardy using fallacious information, so the mere fact that watson won should say something about the credibility of the source. But it's obvious that you know nothing about the watson project so look into it for a bit, because it seems you are a bit ignorant. Watson is not a new product for customers or developers. Watson was created by their R&D department, similar to deep blue in 1997. Sure, it could have commercial applications, but that's not the main goal. Besides, if they were only looking for exposure, why would they go on jeopardy? Nobody watches that anymore.
More random comments: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Defenses_against_undesirable_edits
Lmao
You're running out of continues my friend.
[quote name='noex1337']The only people who can edit closed pages are system administrators. Now are you saying that wikipedia has 100,000 administrators?[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. How many of those admins are experts in their field?
[quote name='noex1337']It's more than a marketing decision. You can't win jeopardy using fallacious information,[/QUOTE]
You can't?
[quote name='noex1337']so the mere fact that watson won should say something about the credibility of the source. But it's obvious that you know nothing about the watson project so look into it for a bit, because it seems you are a bit ignorant.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='noex1337']Watson is not a new product for customers or developers. Watson was created by their R&D department, similar to deep blue in 1997.[/QUOTE]
Did you learn that from Wikipedia?
[quote name='noex1337']Sure, it could have commercial applications, but that's not the main goal.[/QUOTE]
That's always the main goal. :confused2:
[quote name='noex1337']Besides, if they were only looking for exposure, why would they go on jeopardy? Nobody watches that anymore.[/QUOTE]
True.
[quote name='noex1337']More random comments: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Defenses_against_undesirable_edits[/QUOTE]
You're using a Wiki to reinforce the credibility of a Wiki.
k...: Yeah, we're done here.
[quote name='Ataraxia']Can you source wikipedia when the debate is about the creditably of wikipedia?[/QUOTE]
No you can't. Shhhhh, don't tell Noex.
You're running out of continues my friend.
[quote name='noex1337']The only people who can edit closed pages are system administrators. Now are you saying that wikipedia has 100,000 administrators?[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. How many of those admins are experts in their field?
[quote name='noex1337']It's more than a marketing decision. You can't win jeopardy using fallacious information,[/QUOTE]
You can't?
[quote name='noex1337']so the mere fact that watson won should say something about the credibility of the source. But it's obvious that you know nothing about the watson project so look into it for a bit, because it seems you are a bit ignorant.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='noex1337']Watson is not a new product for customers or developers. Watson was created by their R&D department, similar to deep blue in 1997.[/QUOTE]
Did you learn that from Wikipedia?
[quote name='noex1337']Sure, it could have commercial applications, but that's not the main goal.[/QUOTE]
That's always the main goal. :confused2:
[quote name='noex1337']Besides, if they were only looking for exposure, why would they go on jeopardy? Nobody watches that anymore.[/QUOTE]
True.
[quote name='noex1337']More random comments: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Defenses_against_undesirable_edits[/QUOTE]
You're using a Wiki to reinforce the credibility of a Wiki.
k...: Yeah, we're done here.[quote name='Ataraxia']Can you source wikipedia when the debate is about the creditably of wikipedia?[/QUOTE]
No you can't. Shhhhh, don't tell Noex.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
You're missing the point. How many of those admins are experts in their field?
[/QUOTE]
I'd guess about as much as the editors of any encyclopedia.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
You can't?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, not at all.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
Just a bit. My pride does not prevent me from admitting it. What about you Noex? :shrug:
[/QUOTE]
My pride doesn't hamper me as much as yours does.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
Did you learn that from Wikipedia?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I learned that from talking to some of the developers of Watson at an engineering conference. Doesn't make a difference though right?
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
That's always the main goal. :confused2:
[/QUOTE]
Not in the R&D department.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
You're using a Wiki to reinforce the credibility of a Wiki.k...: Yeah, we're done here.
[/QUOTE]
Follow the inline citations. And if you don't think i can use a wiki, then disprove me without using one. You gotta play the game Zero, don't just give up when you know you're losing.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
[/QUOTE]
Oh, if only you waited a bit to play this card. But it's nice to see you taking one from my playbook.
[quote name='Ataraxia']Can you source wikipedia when the debate is about the creditably of wikipedia?[/QUOTE]
I'm knowledgeable enough that I can get away with this. DISCLAIMER: Don't try this at home.
You're missing the point. How many of those admins are experts in their field?
[/QUOTE]
I'd guess about as much as the editors of any encyclopedia.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
You can't?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, not at all.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
Just a bit. My pride does not prevent me from admitting it. What about you Noex? :shrug:
[/QUOTE]
My pride doesn't hamper me as much as yours does.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
Did you learn that from Wikipedia?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I learned that from talking to some of the developers of Watson at an engineering conference. Doesn't make a difference though right?
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
That's always the main goal. :confused2:
[/QUOTE]
Not in the R&D department.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
You're using a Wiki to reinforce the credibility of a Wiki.
k...: Yeah, we're done here.[/QUOTE]
Follow the inline citations. And if you don't think i can use a wiki, then disprove me without using one. You gotta play the game Zero, don't just give up when you know you're losing.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
[/QUOTE]
Oh, if only you waited a bit to play this card. But it's nice to see you taking one from my playbook.
[quote name='Ataraxia']Can you source wikipedia when the debate is about the creditably of wikipedia?[/QUOTE]
I'm knowledgeable enough that I can get away with this. DISCLAIMER: Don't try this at home.
[quote name='noex1337']I'd guess about as much as the editors of any encyclopedia.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm certainly not their Facebook friend if that's what you're asking.
[quote name='noex1337']My pride doesn't hamper me as much as yours does.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='noex1337']Actually, I learned that from talking to some of the developers of Watson at an engineering conference. Doesn't make a difference though right?[/QUOTE]
True.
[quote name='noex1337']Follow the inline citations. And if you don't think i can use a wiki, then disprove me without using one. You gotta play the game Zero, don't just give up when you know you're losing.[/QUOTE]
Win or lose, you and I do have a lot of fun though. :grin:
[quote name='noex1337']Oh, if only you waited a bit to play this card. But it's nice to see you taking one from my playbook.
[/QUOTE]
Dude you are one of the best of your generation. If not THE BEST. [Wait until you see what I did on MF.]
Well I'm certainly not their Facebook friend if that's what you're asking.
[quote name='noex1337']My pride doesn't hamper me as much as yours does.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='noex1337']Actually, I learned that from talking to some of the developers of Watson at an engineering conference. Doesn't make a difference though right?[/QUOTE]
True.
[quote name='noex1337']Follow the inline citations. And if you don't think i can use a wiki, then disprove me without using one. You gotta play the game Zero, don't just give up when you know you're losing.[/QUOTE]
Win or lose, you and I do have a lot of fun though. :grin:
[quote name='noex1337']Oh, if only you waited a bit to play this card. But it's nice to see you taking one from my playbook.
[/QUOTE]
Dude you are one of the best of your generation. If not THE BEST. [Wait until you see what I did on MF.]
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha! I love it! Once again misplaced though.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
Win or lose, you and I do have a lot of fun though. :grin:[/QUOTE]
So is that it? Because that was a serious issue I brought up. Well, I guess from now on I will link someone to this thread when they try and call me out on wikipedia usage
[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha! I love it! Once again misplaced though.
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']
Win or lose, you and I do have a lot of fun though. :grin:[/QUOTE]
So is that it? Because that was a serious issue I brought up. Well, I guess from now on I will link someone to this thread when they try and call me out on wikipedia usage
I always use Wikipedia as source to find citations. For example, when Wikipedia claim this or that, I will see first whether it has any citations or not. If it has, I will then check the validity of the citation before I use it. Normally, this will end up with me citing the citation directly instead of Wikipedia.
[quote name='Kaze Araki']I always use Wikipedia as source to find citations. For example, when Wikipedia claim this or that, I will see first whether it has any citations or not. If it has, I will then check the validity of the citation before I use it. Normally, this will end up with me citing the citation directly instead of Wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
Which is what I do most of the time, except if I'm really lazy then I don't bother checking the links. But anyway, where do you explicitly stand on this issue? Do you think it is a credible source for scientific data (I'm narrowing the scope) or not?
Which is what I do most of the time, except if I'm really lazy then I don't bother checking the links. But anyway, where do you explicitly stand on this issue? Do you think it is a credible source for scientific data (I'm narrowing the scope) or not?
Oh Wikipedia is pretty nice. You need to be careful with whats written, but thats why the sources are stated beneath the article. No sources, probably not very reliable. Sources? Well, check the sources to be sure (some cite rather untrustworthy sources) and in a lot of cases Wikipedia will be pretty reliable. At least for the basic stuff.
I tend to use it to get a general overview on a lot of things. Its perfect for that, and from there I can use more academic sources from the library or university internet databases. Having some basic knowledge of the subject is always nice.
I tend to use it to get a general overview on a lot of things. Its perfect for that, and from there I can use more academic sources from the library or university internet databases. Having some basic knowledge of the subject is always nice.
[quote name='noex1337']Well, that's hard to argue, as I have had difficulty in the past finding useful information from wikipedia when doing social science research.[/QUOTE]
It's especially extremely bias when it comes to political science, this can be known straight away by the type of sources that it use.
It's especially extremely bias when it comes to political science, this can be known straight away by the type of sources that it use.
Kaze already said what I have wanted to say. Wikipedia usually paraphrases the content of other pages. Sometimes, the pages aren't cited, but are served as external links.
I concur with what Lexus said, I use it as a quick reference. Of course, nothing replaces huge tomes, but that's what wikipedia is aiming at - to be an easy to access on-line archive.
Let's say that we have visited another website, not wikipedia, for information - how do we know the content of the site states the truth(or lack thereof) and is a reliable source of information?
I concur with what Lexus said, I use it as a quick reference. Of course, nothing replaces huge tomes, but that's what wikipedia is aiming at - to be an easy to access on-line archive.
Let's say that we have visited another website, not wikipedia, for information - how do we know the content of the site states the truth(or lack thereof) and is a reliable source of information?