Wikipedia: Good, Bad or Otherwise

Miscellaneous Topics
1

I make extensive use of Jim Wale’s Wikipedia, ( http://www.wikipedia.org/ ) but I do have some reservations.

I find their technical articles ( math, science, technology, engineering, etc. ) rather good. The articles must be limited and superficial since Wikipedia is not a book or treatise publishing activity. However, these articles generally have extensive bibliographies into the periodic literature as well as published treatises and ArchivX material. Follow the pointers and one will soon be awash in information. Wikipedia is a rather good way to get to the heart of the corpus of data on various technical matters.

In the area of political issues, Wiki has unfortunately been co-opted by competing interests of broadcast their views. One must regard such articles con grano salis. It is to Wikipedia’s credit that they have modes of correction and objection to material that is either not supported or is skewed or just plain wrong. Considering that it is an open medium, they do o.k. One just has to be careful.

So I give Wikipedia my mixed blessing. For the kinds of things I use it for (Math, Physics and such like) it is rather good.

In a related manner I also give http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ my qualified blessings. Once again, it is a good way to drill down into useful material, particularly in the realm of philosophy.

They are brilliant examples of how our semi-capitalist system provides very valuable services to the general user for little or no cost. The above mentioned services are free (they do not charge). However I contribute moderately to them, because I have gotten rather good value. Anything like that should be supported voluntarily within one’s means.

Bob Kolker

2

Wikipedia is useful, right down to the bibliographies.

I don’t think you can really say that it’s “bad”. It is what it is. The users should be aware that the entries are written by other users, and hence it is in essence just a giant blog that anyone can edit. Other than google I probably use Wikipedia more than any other site, sometimes just browsing through it randomly when work is slow.

Obviously if you really need to find concrete and detailed information, you’d go to the library.

3

Wiki is a good source to start with. It branches off into other subjects and more " objective " sites.

4

Wiki is a good source to start with. It branches off into other subjects and more " objective " sites.

Yup. Wiki is a good way of sinking a “pilot hole” into a field not yet familiar to the user.

Bob Kolker

5

Usually, when I Google something, a link to Wikipedia is on the first page of results. Unless it is a subject which Wikipedia has proven to be accurate about and that I know presents the information in the best-organized manner (such as baseball information; there are quite a few others), I make a concious effort to avoid clicking on it first.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is generally the best organized, although inherently least reliable source of encyclopedic information on the web, and so I find myself increasingly going to it when my search through “the horse’s mouth” is frustrated. I’ve noticed that many Wikipedia pages feature descriptions that are verbatim copies of the text found on the non-Wikipedia page I just looked at.

6

Encyclopedias are genearally meant as a starting point of research. If you want to learn about a topic and you have absolutely no idea what it is, then it’s a good idea to start by perusing an encyclopedia. It is by no means reference worthy, though, because (in the case of traditional encyclopedias) they don’t have any specific information and (in Wikpedia’s context) because the articles are often written by people who are not always qualified to convey that information.

Wikipedia is highly accurate, solely because of a core group of memebers who volunteer to keep the articles clean, uncluttered, and truthful. I trust Wikpedia on the most part, but if I were to be relaying some of the information I learned on Wikpedia to someone else, I would definitely cross-check with higher quality references.

7

The danger is that there is both true and credible stuff there, and total garbage. People who use it have to understand that there is no serious control over content, and no intellectual responsibility implied; so it is nothing more than a suggestion of what might be the case. But since it is so easy, it’s too often the final step for people, not the first step. It is pretty uneven with attributions, though the fact that people are bothering at all with sources is a good step.

8

Wikipedia is highly accurate, solely because of a core group of memebers who volunteer to keep the articles clean, uncluttered, and truthful. I trust Wikpedia on the most part, but if I were to be relaying some of the information I learned on Wikpedia to someone else, I would definitely cross-check with higher quality references.

Bob has it right, Wiki is good for technical things, but suspect for political subjects. I know of out right lies, for instance, regarding global warming. In fact, the scientist Arthur Robinson is lied about. However, whenever I want to get a quick overview of a technical subject, Wikipedia has become my go to place. Technical articles are often superior to what you’ll find anywhere, if you’re looking for a broad overview, with some nice technical details. Wiki also often gives a quick history of a subject straight away along with useful links, which I find to be valuable.

In fact, I often find that Wiki explains things better than sites that are supposed to be by the experts, such as, for instance, when I looked into a Java application I was thinking about downloading. The site that had it was confusing, unclear and overly long. Wiki came right to the point, so that I understood right away what I’d be getting. Too many technical people do not know how to essentialize and explain things. It’s annoying, frankly.

And, wiki has to be the biggest encyclopedia in the world, by a wide margin, with all of its endless entries.

But, if you want to delve deeper, then, I agree, other sources are required. In fact, though I’m a lover of the web, I prefer a book to a website as a rule, because they’re solid, usually accurate, won’t be inaccessible if the web is down, I can take them anywhere, and they’ll always be with me for years to come. There is something nice about having a large library of good books at your finger tips.

9

thanks for the stanford encyclopedia any alternatives are great. Wiki is hugely used also very suitable information for brief/general descriptions for any age or generation pending they are correct.