Wikipedia

frogus23 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-03-2004, 03:02 PM

Is it against the rules to big up this website even though its not mine?

Wikipedia is 'a free-content encyclopedia in many languages'...

I just wondered if anyone else uses it and/or contributes?

I absolutely love it the mostest, and spend many happy hours clicking links & random pages and sponging all over. I think that making the collection of all human knowledge available to everyone with a PC is a kickarse and thoroughly worthwhile aim, so you should go and contribute if there is any knowledge that you have which is missing from the pool...

So far I've written them articles about the Cramps, the Sonics & the Demolition Doll Rods (bands), and the stones album Out Of Our Heads, the Outkast album Stankonia, and Liberal theology, if you're interested

Vicsun · #2 (**permalink**) 10-03-2004, 03:08 PM

I love it and use it whenever I need to dig any information up. While (probably) not as authoritative as a 'real' encyclopedia the fact that most pages are written by experts in their field as opposed to researchers, makes wikipedia an invaluable resource.

garazdawi · #3 (**permalink**) 10-03-2004, 03:29 PM

I use it from time to time, but have yet to contribute to that Wiki. It's a great idea though and a great place to share your knowledge with the world. The whole idea of a wiki is quite amzing I think and I regularly contribute to three wiki's, which all (when I think about it) use the Wikipedia for defintions... it puts alot of trust into the people that edit the wiki, but it seems like the people online are ready for it, something that I did not expect at first.

Volk · #4 (**permalink**) 10-03-2004, 04:10 PM

Its a great source for information it holds at lot more truth and information on certan things then other encyclopedias. I have yet to contribute anything to it besides money to keep it going.

Brynn · #5 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 01:33 AM

Great

I've never heard of it before, so thanks for the idea! Volk, why did you learn to speak Hungarian?

CM · #6 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 03:57 AM

Interesting website but how can you account for the accuracy of the information?

Brynn · #7 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 04:56 AM

I was thinkingthe same, too. What if I edit a page (I haven't tried it), and post whatever I want? How do they check if it's true or not?

C Elegans · #8 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 07:05 AM

I have checked the site before, and found that the quality level of information fluctuated too much for my liking. Whereas I like the idea in principle, I must ask the same question as Fas about the reliability of the information. Is there any review system of the entries?

I prefer to use Encyclopedia Britannica for the few occations I need an encyclopedia. My uni has an institutional subscription.

My database addiction is to Pubmed (formely Medline, the scientific database for all medical research)

garazdawi · #9 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 09:00 AM

I don't think that there are any people doing any extensive checking of the validity of the wikipedia and you have to take all the information in there with a grain of salt, but it can from time to time give you a very accurate answere. What somepeople do is that they first check the wikipedia for the inof they need. If it is missing they just post their findings in there to help other searches. Occationally there are people that screw up pages and there is no way to know if the page you are viewing is like that. I have however found that people often keep track of the pages that they have created and if anyone tries to screw with them they tend to fix them within a couple of weeks time.

Vicsun · #10 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans

I have checked the site before, and found that the quality level of information fluctuated too much for my liking. Whereas I like the idea in principle, I must ask the same question as Fas about the reliability of the information. Is there any review system of the entries?

As far as I know, it is mainly peer review that keeps the information (somewhat) accurate. Whenever someone writes an article, they will usually hawkly watch over it for any edits

giles337 · #11 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 01:05 PM

woah! i've never used it before, but have just checked it out with some tests:

Sonic I own 5 of the 6 sonic gamebooks made!!! i never knew that!
Random: Now im learning about chaos theory

Next i plan to check if i know some stuff it doesn't

Until then though? it rules!!!!!!

Volk · #12 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brynn

Great

I've never heard of it before, so thanks for the idea! Volk, why did you learn to speak Hungarian?

I was in the area, after the so called fall of communism in Romania a lot of those who where of Hungarian decent chose to speak Hungarian and where allowed to do so, a lot of those who owned shops where Hungarian so it helped to be on speaking terms with them, because unlike in north america a lot of prices are negociable, and the more i heard it spoke the more i began to love the language, its odd dialects and idioms and so when i was in university i had the option of learning Hungarian as a minor and still major in Communications and Computers, it hasnt given me a huge edge over things in the job market but its nice to understand one another in a different language.

frogus23 · #13 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 04:27 PM

In general, the more popular or broadly known a topic is, the more people will be involved in the discussion & research behind its continuing editions, and hence the more accurate the information will be.

The system of peer-policing is incredibly rigorous - if you don't mind, why not do a test by signing up & screwing up an article with some false info & see how long it takes to get edited - I believe that it'll be more like hours than weeks.

As for the more obscure articles, the less reliable information is - but if you can recognise this, then the wiki can be as useful as any old Joe's personal site about a subject - which is some use. The more obscure articles tend to be written by people who at least care about the subject, if they don't know everything.

Just think about it this way - does the encyclopedia Britannica have an article on the Demolition Doll Rods??

(Don't actually know, so please disregard this rhetorical question if the answer won't go my way in this case

)

Weasel · #14 (**permalink**) 10-04-2004, 05:19 PM

Being the type who doesn't trust most history, I use Wikipedia to cross reference with other sites. I figure the more I learn from different sources the better I can get to the "truth" of the matter. Maybe I ask for too much.