Why Not Wikipedia?

Feb 12, 09:13 AM

I’ve had numerous debates with people about the validity of information on Wikipedia. I just found a video that tells it better than I do, though.

— Catherine Nolan

Comment

  1. Yeah, I can see it now. I was always kinda more lenient towards Wikipedia, but this has definately changed. Yeah, Stephen Colbert’s remarks are right on the button too, thats hilarious and goes to show you what kind of a “zoo” is Wikipedia. I recently wanted to learn more about Harvey Milk, I’d read on a catholic blog about how infamous he was in that he was really licentious and even drove his former lovers to suicide. I checked him on Wiki and, like the recent movie Milk (no, I haven’t seen it, just what I about it being “a movie about hope”) it shows a real sanitized version of Milk really hiding his dark side. Anyway, Wikipedia seemed like quite a misrepresentation, not even acknowledging that dark side.

    — Rob Koechl · Feb 12, 10:36 AM · #

  2. The Wikipedia question seems so simple to me. It’s a useful first point of reference rather, not an actual source to use in a paper, but as such it can be a useful for <em>finding</em> sources.

    @Rob: If that Wikipedia article is a misrepresentation, why don’t you change it?

    — Blaise Alleyne · Feb 17, 06:27 AM · #

  3. @Blaise – you’re right, it can be useful for finding sources, but at the same time, there have been articles (I’ve used it occasionally to look for popular philosophical discussions) where all the sources listed come from a single author or two.

    And I didn’t go about adding other sources to the list because I don’t take it seriously enough, I suppose.

    @Rob – The encyclopedia itself doesn’t have a history of being a totally objective and unbiased amalgamation of information.

    — Catherine · Feb 17, 10:15 AM · #

  4. Ah, sorry – I hope I didn’t come across as snapping. Darnit, every time I try to write something between classes, I tend to sound really short. I just meant to agree with you guys in general.

    — Catherine · Feb 17, 12:48 PM · #

  5. @Catherine: Yeah, I guess also an emphasis on “can“ (it can be useful for finding sources). It’s not always useful, but I do usually find it a useful starting point either for sources or even to get grounded on an issue.

    Also, I guess it depends on the subject. There are much better articles about Computer Science than philosophy, hehe.

    — Blaise Alleyne · Feb 17, 04:53 PM · #

  6. A funny story about Wikipedia being used as a source: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090211/1249253735.shtml

    — Blaise Alleyne · Feb 19, 06:43 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.