Thread: Wong Fei Hung vs Wikipedia
6/27/2010 8:41pm, #161
The remains that if you choose 100 random articles in Wikipedia on MAJOR subjects (not fringe things, conspiracy theories, or even Martial Arts), you'll find nothing but correct information, cited well enough to help you continue your search. The citations are often other periodicals that can be lent from a library, etc.
Yes folks, it turns out sometimes your proof isn't actually in the first, second, or third citation. It's actually in the written works/studies published...which anyone with a library card or local Border's can do.
The arguments have been that "if I can't find it on the Internet in three degrees of separation, it (Wikipedia) MUST not be true". The truth is often that the Wiki page is 100% accurate, but you'd need to leave the Internet to actually find some of the terms and things written about there, etc.
Last edited by W. Rabbit; 6/27/2010 8:59pm at .
6/27/2010 9:01pm, #162
It's sad that this whole thread happened because I went to grab a picture of a real person, Wong Fei Hung, happened to get it from the wiki, asked Ming Loyalist a serious, directed question, and an army of site trolls showed up.
Great derailment, site nerds.
6/27/2010 9:38pm, #163
6/27/2010 10:02pm, #164
My point remains the same: you can't call anything a "bad source" if in some cases the reference material is 100% accurate. In the case of Wiki, it remains much of it is perfectly accurate. At least with Wiki, someone will tend to point it out. For-profit knowledgebases like EB, are a different matter.
Last edited by W. Rabbit; 6/27/2010 10:10pm at .
6/27/2010 10:13pm, #165
I can call it a "bad source" if the hierarchy of the editors and the resulting culture discourage corrections which discuss points of contention. That is Wikipedia's biggest problem that won't be solved until they screen and vet the admins and page care-takers. Then they need checks and balances to overrule people who have obvious vested interests if having pages read a particular way. Until then, it is not a dependable source in the least; it is an aggregate of suggestions like Yahoo Answers (oh yes I did).
6/27/2010 10:25pm, #166
Go read this wikipedia page on quantum entanglement. And find me an error. Seriously.
Love and respek
6/27/2010 10:33pm, #167
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Sinsinnatti Oh Hi Ho
- Recovery(lung surgeries)
6/27/2010 10:33pm, #168
Plus, nothing should be 'held hostage.' The fact that that is a possibility again points to the problem with Wikipedia.
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.
6/27/2010 10:35pm, #169
6/27/2010 10:40pm, #170
The accuracy of the content is separate from the delivery system (Wikipedia). If the delivery system is flawed, then the summaries of the content are jeopardized.
Same thing I've been saying all along.