[oclug] wikipedia

OddSox oddsoxster at gmail.com
Fri Mar 30 16:49:31 EDT 2007


On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Brad Barnett wrote:

>
> Wikipedia?!  Trustworthy?!  Are you utterly, completely, and totally
> insane? ;)
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't put it any other way.  The Wikipedia is  
> absolutely
> the _least_ trustworthy encyclopedic source you could ever imagine.
>
> For example, 12 seconds before Croombe visits the Wikipedia page  
> you list
> above, a vandal could modify the entire page with utterly false and
> completely absurd data.. that would seem truthful to Croombe.
>
> Further, there are extremely biased articles, fiefdoms of knowledge
> controlled by zealots, you name it.  Frankly, the Wikipedia is  
> likely the
> worst source of information you could find for anything, for
> trustworthiness.
>
> Sure, some of its articles are relatively (and I use "relatively" with
> purpose!) well edited and factual.  However, since one can never  
> know what
> article is correct or incorrect, any trip to the Wikipedia ultimately
> results in knowledge entering your head, without even the most minor
> assurances that it is correct.
>
> Articles are peppered with urban legends, slanted paragraphs, words
> slipped into strategic spots to change the flow of sentences, you  
> name it.
>
> The worst part of all of this, is that many people on the web take the
> Wikipedia as some form of authoritative knowledge.  Yes, these  
> people also
> watch the news at night, and think that reporters and televised  
> media has
> a goal to inform, rather than to shock and awe.
>
> Well, no matter.  Please, just don't call Wikipedia trustworthy,  
> ever.  At
> least with an author's webpage, you have an idea of who wrote it.
>
> The wikipedia?
>
> It's the blathering of fools distorting the wisdom of a few... with  
> the
> false legitimacy that only the media and urban legend can create.
> -- 

Sorry, but I can't help but jump in here.

The above is basically blathering - there is no source on the  
internet (or off) that can be considered 'reliable'. As with any  
media you have to do your research and take it with a grain of salt -  
as Bill already pointed out.

If Wikipedia can't be believed, tell me one source that can be  
considered 'reliable' - any-time any-where.

Perhaps you can show some examples where Wikipedia is so far off the  
mark. I've used it for research and haven't found any particular  
article that can be demonstrated to be an outright lie. Sure,  
sometimes it's inaccurate, but the same applies to any media outlet -  
including the CBC... (naturally, when researching a particular  
subject, it's good practice to look at more than one source.)

Fred

PS: If Brad feels that name-callling such as 'neo-conservatism' and  
'Stephen Harper' are valid arguments, I give up.








More information about the OCLUG mailing list
http://oclug.on.ca/archives/oclug/2007-March/052229.html
oclug.on.ca
crawl=CC-MAIN-2013-20
5489
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:HUIF6T5EVQUEI37FIZVC56ZEI3F2DHZ7
<urn:uuid:35ceef65-33c8-4813-99c2-f10644a0df68>
2013-05-25T14:45:45Z
204.225.221.10
sha1:GJW27JKABDWSIOFVC4QTS5NIXJV5HS4F
<urn:uuid:7cd443b5-56b0-42d2-8839-bea8341468a8>
http://oclug.on.ca/archives/oclug/2007-March/052229.html
response
<urn:uuid:528531fc-1754-4035-8231-2d635ccde513>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2013-20
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for Spring 2013
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf