Sal Ammoniac, what’s the problem with the Washington Court House entry, and why don’t you correct it yourself?
There are only two websites that get my money every year: Straight Dope and Wiki. Both are good for the same thing, good clean fun that tickles my brain.
I would not sooner get important information from Wiki than I would take medical or legal advice from the fine professionals here (I am sure they like it like that). Iti is a starting point, and both add to my extensive mental library of knowledge-that-I-will-almost-certainly-never-use. I visit Wiki all the time.
That would be the Citizendium
The site is just a collection of human knowledge. Vandalism happens, of course, but it’s not rampant, and it’s not even close to the misinformation that I find in grade school and junior high textbooks. Generally speaking, the more varied the people involved in a consensus, the less likely for the consensus to be grossly inaccurate, or agenda-serving.
Most encyclopedia entries are written from start to finish by a handful of people, and reviewed by maybe a handful of others before it’s printed. That has a higher potential for abuse by someone with an agenda than Wikipedia does, and vandalized entries are typically corrected extremely quickly.
Count me in as one of the supporters.
The trouble with Wikipedia is that it really can not be considered a whole work like the Britannica. Brittanica has an overarching editorial policy, and any discrepancies within that policy are worked out ahead of publication.
Not so with Wikipedia, which has a “publish first, edit later, argue about editing concurrently” approach. Individual articles can have great credibility. A couple of years ago, the Wikipedia was the only one of the main popular information websites that had the correct description of how bits are encoded on a CD (About.com and HowStuffWorks both had a “convenient fiction”: easier to understand, but utterly wrong; they’ve since upgraded their entries).
But as a whole, one must be skeptical of Wikipedia’s credibility due to its lack of universally applied editorial policy and anonymous contributors. I may like the article on a particular subject by Wiki-user SpongeBrain, and SpongeBrain’s user page may claim they hold an advanced degree in the subject, but I may have no way of verifying that if I so desired. (“Hello, Yale? Could you tell me, did you ever graduate someone likely to use the name SpongeBrain when authoring an online encyclopedia? Hello? Hello?”)
Well I ain’t losing any sleep over it. So no worries.
Wikipedia is pretty much the best thing ever. I use it at least once a day. The occasional inaccuracy or lack of formal sourcing is more than made up for by the sheer tonnage and timeliness of it.
The medical articles are, for the most part, pretty good. I wouldn’t base treatment decisions totally on them, for the same reasons they don’t work as primary sources in other disciplines, but as a quick review or something to jog my memory they’re fantastic. I don’t see why I shouldn’t trust them as much as I do any other book on my shelf, or any other non-primary web site.
The definition in that article agrees with what I posted, right? Or wasn’t I clear?
Something didn’t work right. I meant to link the disambiguation, which lists wikipedia as one of the meanings of “wiki”. Also as a verb.
Sorry for the confusion.
Right. Still make my point that a wiki is the entire collection of articles, not one specific article.
Oh, yeah, I do this too. I have so much more cultural knowledge via Wikipedia than I ever would have otherwise.
Okie dokie.
I think it’s a good starting point. Usually there are some links that will point one in the right direction towards a citable, reliable source, although one assumes that the decision of what links to include might reflect the bias of the author(s).
Mainly because I don’t myself know anything about Washington Courthouse. It does strike me that a listing of the fast-food restaurants in town is not so pertinent, but then what do I know?
I find it odd that they all the churches in town listed with address and phone #…but overall that is a decent article about WCH. There really isn’t that much to say about the place.
Pretty much. I generally use it as a jumping off point-to get the basics, and then use the “outside links” to find more.
On some silly, frivolous things though, it’s hysterical. Like prank calls, goatse, various stuff like that.
YUCK!!!
Do not wiki "goatse’.
I need to go scrub my eyeballs.
O.K., thanks, Sal Ammoniac. I thought that you meant that there were mistakes in the Washington Court House article. The only problem with the article is that, compared with other similar articles, there is too much information in it. For instance, consider this article about a city in Ohio with nearly three times as many people where the article is considerably shorter:
I think in fact that there are rules in Wikipedia that say that too much detail about a city is not allowed. Any information beyond a certain amount is supposed to go into a related database called Wikitravel.
This is documentation for one that I mentioned in a recent post:
John Seigenthaler is the founder of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. This cite in response to your question is an excerpt from their online website:
(There is also a link to Mr. Siegenthaler’s own written account and to his lecture on the same topic at the First Amendment website. In his lecture, Mr. Seigenthaler tells what became of the culprit after he was apprehended. Interesting stuff.)
I think most people do like to “consider their sources.” That doesn’t mean that every resource has to be credentialed, but everyone who writes about a topic that we want to rely on should be someone who has expertise in that field or exceptional access to knowledge on the subject. I am not an academic, but I could contribute to a couple of limited topics. On the otherhand, you wouldn’t find me qualified to write your biography.
Having something as convenient as Wiki, but actually reliable would be great!
Sure there is: Who is writing it.
Real encyclopedia have real editors with at least some proven knowledge of the topic. Wikipedia is written by the equivalent of 5 million monkeys.
And before people say “well, you haven’t read it then,” well, yes, I have. And I try to fix things as often as I can. But unless you are eternally vigilant some idiot just comes around later and screws it up again.
As far as comparing it to random information on websites popped up by Google, well, sure, on average it’s better, because Google itself works on a similar 5 million monkeys principle (popular sites are rated higher than good information). But compared to going out and reading real books on the topic, or any encyclopedia (unless it’s some geek topic that lacks proper encyclopedia coverage) there’s no comparison. Wikipedia always loses, and badly.