![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastWikipedia is the source of much debate: is it a good resource, or questionable, or what? So there's a regular stream of articles giving evidence in support of the various viewpoints: for example, The Register is a good source of anti-Wikipedia writings, and articles such as this provide a more Wikipedia-sympathetic view.
Myself, i'm a critical supporter of the project. i have a Wikipedia login, which i've used to make a number of small edits here and there. My overall feeling, based on induction from articles i've read covering topics i already have prior knowledge of, is that it's often reasonably reliable, sans topics which are the subject of heated debates outside the relevant scholarly communities. So i'd be comfortable suggesting people refer to Wikipedia for information about the Wars of the Roses, or about how an internal combustion engine works, or about differential calculus; but not particularly comfortable referring people to articles on George W Bush, or on abortion, or on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. And of course, there are articles in-between these two positions.
A while back i was trying to have a discussion on an e-list about current physical and cosmological theories, and made a few references to Wikipedia articles on these topics in order to help explain what i was going on about. Someone on the list with hir own *cough* very idiosyncratic theories in these areas (actually, the person who inspired me to write this post) tried to diminish my argument by mmaking some statement along the lines of "Pfft, Wikipedia, as if that's reliable." i countered by noting that the articles to which i had referred basically gel'd with all the other reading i'd done on these topics, often by respected authors; and i encouraged people to do their own reading on these matters, and come to their own conclusions. It was a good example of naïve Wikipedia-assassination, coming not from a place of thoughtful criticism, but from a place of simple prejudice.
Interestingly, at least one of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sacred_harlot's kids has been told not to use Wikipedia as a reference, presumably on the basis of its supposed lack of reliability. Yet i am aware of no such restrictions on them using the mass media as a source, even though i have personal experience of poor journalistic standards: take, as but one example, the time when i watched a supposedly "live" tv news report about a protest - showing scenes that i had personally been present at prior to the broadcast in question. And implying that the Murdoch media, such as the Herald-Sun, are a reliable source of information is naïve at best.
There are certainly problems with Wikipedia, some of which are being addressed, some of which are not. But i tend to feel that the issues that myself and other people have with Wikipedia have more chance of being resolved than the extensive issues myself and other people have with much of the mainstream media.
Myself, i'm a critical supporter of the project. i have a Wikipedia login, which i've used to make a number of small edits here and there. My overall feeling, based on induction from articles i've read covering topics i already have prior knowledge of, is that it's often reasonably reliable, sans topics which are the subject of heated debates outside the relevant scholarly communities. So i'd be comfortable suggesting people refer to Wikipedia for information about the Wars of the Roses, or about how an internal combustion engine works, or about differential calculus; but not particularly comfortable referring people to articles on George W Bush, or on abortion, or on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. And of course, there are articles in-between these two positions.
A while back i was trying to have a discussion on an e-list about current physical and cosmological theories, and made a few references to Wikipedia articles on these topics in order to help explain what i was going on about. Someone on the list with hir own *cough* very idiosyncratic theories in these areas (actually, the person who inspired me to write this post) tried to diminish my argument by mmaking some statement along the lines of "Pfft, Wikipedia, as if that's reliable." i countered by noting that the articles to which i had referred basically gel'd with all the other reading i'd done on these topics, often by respected authors; and i encouraged people to do their own reading on these matters, and come to their own conclusions. It was a good example of naïve Wikipedia-assassination, coming not from a place of thoughtful criticism, but from a place of simple prejudice.
Interestingly, at least one of
sacred_harlot's kids has been told not to use Wikipedia as a reference, presumably on the basis of its supposed lack of reliability. Yet i am aware of no such restrictions on them using the mass media as a source, even though i have personal experience of poor journalistic standards: take, as but one example, the time when i watched a supposedly "live" tv news report about a protest - showing scenes that i had personally been present at prior to the broadcast in question. And implying that the Murdoch media, such as the Herald-Sun, are a reliable source of information is naïve at best.There are certainly problems with Wikipedia, some of which are being addressed, some of which are not. But i tend to feel that the issues that myself and other people have with Wikipedia have more chance of being resolved than the extensive issues myself and other people have with much of the mainstream media.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-02 13:48 (UTC)I've got a problem with them right now though, the banned editing of the hd-dvd pages and removal of the decryption key and locking of pages to prevent people putting it back up. It's understandable though, they have a hard enough time finding the funds to keep it running, let alone fight DMCA legal battles.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-03 07:32 (UTC)*nod* Yes, it's helped me with some of the fundamentals of comp. sci., serving as a springboard to other, more comprehensive resources.
Heh, this is true.
*nod* Agreed. And it's not like the key isn't now trivially discoverable elsewhere on the Net . . . .
no subject
Date: 2007-05-03 07:43 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-03 07:57 (UTC)