Well, no, knowledge was just as readily available. Not from your computer, though; you had to go to a school or public library and use an encyclopedia.
That, to me, is pretty much what Wikipedia is: the online equivalent of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and similar works. A fine reference, full of useful information, good at sorting historical events into their proper order, listing Linnaen (sp?) classifications of animals and plants, and so on. Wikipedia is especially good with pop culture, too. It is excellent with facts: who did what when, and how.
But ultimately, Wikipedia doesn’t go very deeply into the subject. Why should a professor accept Wikipedia as an authoritative cite when he or she knows there have been many books, peer-reviewed journal articles, and other reliable sources written on the subject, each listing the same facts as Wikipedia and including plenty of depth to the topic? A 2000-word Wikipedia item on, say, the Russian Revolution of 1917 cannot approach the depth and analysis of the many, many works by respected and authoritative historians on the same subject, some of whom disagree with each other. It seems to me that part of the goal in assigning students papers is to teach them to think critically, which must necessarily happen when deciding which sources to use. Wikipedia, like a printed encyclopedia, offers an overview of the facts and shallow analysis through the convenience of one-stop shopping. No critical or comparative thinking is necessary.
I don’t believe that the claim that Wikipedia isn’t allowed in academic papers is due to the fact that profs and teachers want to put the students through the same research torture that they themselves endured in the pre-Wikipedia days. Rather, I imagine their objections would be the same if the students went to the library and used the printed Encyclopaedia Brittanica: one general overview source with minimal analysis is not enough. Students must use a multitude of sources, absorbing all the different points of view, and make a reasoned, logical decision as to which source best supports their arguments. This cannot happen with one anonymous source such as Wikipedia.
Another vote for “It’s great for what it is, as long as you don’t rely on it to be something it’s not.”
I find it especially handy when I need a clue on some recent thing (possibly a pop-culture name) on which I am currently clueless, or when I need to provide a quick link identifying something I refer to (here on the SDMB, for example) that I suspect other people may be clueless about.
I agree with you completely. The fact that all of us know what Wikipedia is and have used it extensively is the biggest endorsement I can think of. With all its flaws, it represents a stunning advance over anything we had before, and, like Google, it’s a revolutionary departure from past ways of interacting with knowledge. It truly is the collective head of the English-speaking world.
I also have to say that the number of not-so-good articles on Wikipedia is tiny. I can only think of one example, in fact – and even that article will tell you most of what you need to know (and a lot of what you don’t). I’m always impressed by articles on medical subjects. They’re clearly written by people who know what they’re talking about.
How anyone ever found a wiki that they knew to be wrong?
Do you have a link and a cite showing such?
I’m not being antagonistic, and I agree with most here that’s an excellent source for information. I’ve just never found anything that I know to be factually wrong.
I assume you mean an article on Wikipedia. A “wiki” is a collection of editable articles, of which Wikipedia is one example.
Anyway, to answer your question: yes.
The most common I’ve found is out-of-date or incomplete information. One example was a description of a highway that had obviously been written before extensive changes were made to the road. Another was a list of radio stations that didn’t say it was incomplete, but was missing a half-dozen entries. I found an error in the description of the origin of a particular breed of cattle. I’ve corrected hundreds of spelling errors and dozens of dead or mistyped links.
Probably the biggest error I found was in the description of an obscure technology that I helped to develop. I ended up ripping out several paragraphs and rewriting them.
None of this keeps me from being an active Wikipedia user, though. It’s a great resource. You just can’t assume it’s always 100% correct.
It’s usually pretty easy to spot the bias, too. Just read the Wal-Mart articles. First, the criticism was moved into its own article, and then it was “sanitized” by Wal-Mart apologists to the point where each sentence of criticism is followed by several sentences of rebuttal. The Wal-Mart criticism page reads like a sales pitch for the company now.
I am totally for it; I think it’s one of the greatest accomplishments of the Internet era. It makes the Internet live up to its promise in terms of ease of finding a variety of accurate information, information which would often have been far too obscure to hope to easily gather before. Yeah, it has its flaws, but they’re not nearly as pronounced as some people think; just applying the minute effort, as a reader, of checking the history of any article with dubious information makes it that much more reliable. And it’s not as though the Internet at large or books in general or any of the various other things touted as crushing competitors to Wikipedia don’t suffer from the same “Anyone can write anything and put it out there”, either. Just like with any source, you need some level of ability to discern trustworthiness on a case-by-case basis.
However, the thing that pleases me the most is how Wikipedia turned reading the encyclopedia, at random and for mere entertainment, from the canonically beyond-the-pale example of nerdiness to one of the most common slacker pastimes. How fucking cool is that?
I love wikipedia as a quickie source, esp. for entertainment purposes–where else can I easily find information on Dr Who and random book series without a real search? It’s easy to look up, say, a short biography of some random historical character, usually with a picture, if I’m not sure who the person was and don’t want to look through 6 books to find out.
But if I want real, solid information, I’ll go to a book or reliable source.
I was curious about the origin of frybread the other day, so I wikied it. There it was, in all it’s glory.
I love Wikipedia. Any scholar who automaticaly dismisses it as a source aught to drop a couple 'ludes and chill.
I love Wiki pretty much the same way others do here. Funny thing is, there are many cases where in fact the article written is too technical and proabbly actually needs to be dumbed down. I can’t recall off the top of my head, but there was a math related article I started reading and I just gave up on it, and I am actually pretty darn good at math.
Also, it is ripe with dead links. The problem is that when people adopt a page that don’t really keep up ith the links so much as the regular content.
I love Wikipedia, and it’s gotten a lot more reliable. I still tell students “don’t cite anything from Wiki until you’ve corroborated it, and then cite the corroborating source rather than Wiki”, but it’s a fantastic resource for obscure topics and while I’ve definitely found some whoppers- it’s well worth the nothing that it costs. (I’ll even say I’d probably pay a few dollars a year to subscribe.)
One of my favorite ways to enjoy Wikipedia is to use it as sort of a MasterPlots or Cliffs Notes of books I’ve always wanted to read or movies I’d like to see, but won’t get around to anytime soon. I recently read just about all the Wikipedia articles about Stephen King’s works, and Harry Turtledove’s WorldWar saga. Same for some WWII movies I’ve only been able to catch in bits and pieces (Tora! Tora! Tora!, Patton).
As good as the original thing? Of course not. But I’ll avail myself of anything with which I can enhance my cultural literacy.
Mmmmyeah…Actually I was under the misapprehension that some professionals are insisting Wikipedia not be used at any point in the research process, let alone putting it in a biblio or notes. That’s where I got the idea that they wanted things done the hard way.
Then again, sometimes getting an accurate overview of an unfamiliar topic depends on where and how you begin. Cutting down on the inevitable confusion in thumbing, skimming, post-it-ing and noting on umpteen dozen books, articles, photocopies and coursepaks is nice, but may start you off with the wrong impression. Wading right in Omaha Beach style is probably a good skill to develop, all things considered.
For that matter, I don’t doubt there is some resistance (maybe not conscious) to Wiki-type tools, if only because the last generation always believes the next has it too easy.
[QUOTE=For that matter, I don’t doubt there is some resistance (maybe not conscious) to Wiki-type tools, if only because the last generation always believes the next has it too easy.[/QUOTE]
I (at age 62), taught myself not to do that. Now I thoroughly enjoy much of what the next generation has to offer.
Good for you. The middle-managers bitching lately about having to treat their Generation Y workers like human beings could learn a thing or two from your example.
Just for anyone who’s interested, apparently the Eggcorn Database classifies this particular substitution (of “ripe with” for traditional “rife with”) as “nearly mainstream”.
That’s cool, but:
I never hear or read anyone saying “ripe with”.
I pretty often hear or read “rife with”.
I suspect a colloquialism. Am I right?
What is eggcorn, and where does it hail from?
I was trying to be helpful, and discreet.
And, though not the ultimate authroity, m-w ain’t buying it.
Sorry, Gangster, for making such a fuss.
Peace,
mangeorge
