Originally posted by bjohnson407Excellent post.
Seriously, what do you think? You seem pretty committed to the free market. Isn't Wikipedia just like the free-market of ideas, a la JS Mill?
It seems to me that the whole idea of "the mob" throws a kink in free market ideology. How could we be free rational agents if, as many say of so-called "mob mentality," that we are often unreasonable and even d ...[text shortened]... ments seem irrelevant. I would have read the article, but the site is down for some reason.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat article, like this earlier one
Should we trust the "wisdom of crowds" or fear the mob?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/16111162.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
claims that Wikiedia's a useful tool and a good source of information. So I'd say - trust the wisdom of crowds, but never completely trust any source, including Wikipedia.
1 edit
Originally posted by icantwriteI'm in academia and I use wiki from time to time; but I'm careful about the topics that I research there. I primarily use it only to look up mathematical equations when I don't have a book handy. It's fast and pretty much 100% accurate. After all math doesn't have a lot of grey area, and with many mathematicians checking it over, errors are quickly removed.
I'm at Uni and if we cite wikipedia once in an essay it's an instant fail. Nobody in the academic world uses it coz it's so inaccurate. I remember one of my teachers proving a point by managing to submit the fact that Mozart had a ginger cat called Cuddles. It stayed up there for almost a month before anyone questioned it. In short. It's VERY dangerous and shouldn't be trusted.
I've also used it to get a very superficial summary of an obscure, yet simple, economic idea. Obviously I'm doing all the heavy research through peer-reviewed journals, but if I want to get a quick three sentence run down of Friedman's Rule (the second one), then wiki's great.
All that said, I would never ever bank any of my official research on an article from wiki. For most subjects, I place it a bit below "my colleague informed me . . ." and somewhat above "a friend my grandmother plays bingo with said" in terms of credibility.
Originally posted by telerionThat is a pretty good way of looking at it.
For most subjects, I place it a bit below "my colleague informed me . . ." and somewhat above "a friend my grandmother plays bingo with said" in terms of credibility.
As for things like "Mozart had a ginger cat called Cuddles", it would have just taken a little more effort to find that isn't true by looking at other sources. As mentioned, wikipedia is an okay starting point, or finding out something very trivial, but shouldn't be considered a very reliable source to be quoted.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterA Zionist group called CAMERA (Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting something-that-starts-with-A) recently got sued for trying to rewrite history on Wikipedia. They began writing about how the Palestinians never existed and there were no massacres at Deyr Yassin, Jenin, or Ramallah, and all that, before someone from Electronic Intifada reported them to the site administrators, who sued CAMERA. The Zionists couldn't have been too happy with that!
This is a tough one. I think Wiki is sometimes a great starting point for research, however, as the article states, it's sometimes biased and often quite wrong on hot button issues, for instance, "school vouchers". Your analogy of Wiki as "the free-market of ideas" is interesting on the surface, however, I would contend that it is more like Hobbes' "state of nature."
2 edits
Originally posted by icantwriteThe good content in wikipedia isn't the article itself, but the links in the bibliography. The main articles, like you say, need to be checked with their sources. If it doesn't have a cite, it isn't reliable, which is true even in published works.
I suppose you're right. I've got an Athenes subscription so I don't find it hard to find good journals, but most people might find it a little more difficult. I just urge anyone that uses it to triple check any facts just in case.
That being said, however, I've read a couple different studies on wikipedia that stated it's got approximately the same number of factual errors as most other published encyclopedias (and here I don't have a source to cite -- I would suggest searching it yourself if you're interested).
*edit* one source that I read is given about 3 posts up from BBC
Originally posted by scherzoSued them for what?
A Zionist group called CAMERA (Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting something-that-starts-with-A) recently got sued for trying to rewrite history on Wikipedia. They began writing about how the Palestinians never existed and there were no massacres at Deyr Yassin, Jenin, or Ramallah, and all that, before someone from Electronic Intifada reported them ...[text shortened]... the site administrators, who sued CAMERA. The Zionists couldn't have been too happy with that!
From my past experience, Wikipedia is indeed a useful tool, offering a genuinely thorough and convenient encyclopedia. In addition, I really don't see much to the argument of those who simply dismiss Wikipedia because "anyone can edit anything." While this is certainly true, if for whatever reason you have reason to doubt an article, simply check the sources first-hand for yourself. If for no other use, you could always consider Wikipedia a list of additional resources.