The Fraud that is wikipedia

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:55 pm

I'm making this topic because I keep running into friends that have no idea how stupid wikipedia really is so I was hoping to spread the good word here. As a history major I find this whole website just painful to look at. These people should crack open a book someday.

Wikipedia is a good tool to find about old WW2 airplanes, what plankton really is, or other benign "oh wow I didn't know that topics!" but it should never be used as any sort of research tool. Wikipedia's less than scrupulous users find ways to insert false information into a million different topics. Sometimes "wars" develop to keep a topic "NPOV (non biased point of view)" and informed users try to save a topic from these idiots but then your left with a topic that's half bullshit and half true and you won't know which is which. You might even end up with a topic that's so NPOV that it's freakin useless. Did a country invade its helpless neighbor? Oh no you can't put that because a malicious user thinks said helpless country got invaded because "they were a nation of pussies."

Sometimes this crap gets even worse. Some users are now guarding a topic on a particular brand of hate speech because a few idiots think that type of hate speech is warrented and is "factual." The topic has been saved but for how long? The malicious users could argue that the topic be deleted for not being NPOV(racists have feelings too) and then move their crap somewhere else under a different title.

Anyone feel the same way?

Post by **Ghegs** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:24 pm

Ironically, you could use a bit of NPOV yourself.

As a history major you must run into this sort of thing easily if you're looking at topics about wars 'n such where point-of-view might come into play. Personally I haven't even noticed this, and Wiki has successfully helped me through an exam or two. Like you said, there's still valid info in there. Anyone doing actually important research (on any subject) would check the information from few separate sources anyway.

As often happens, when a realization of an idea (in this case, offering bucketloads of free, accessible and extendable information) is maintained by us error-prone humans something goes wrong sooner or later. This doesn't mean Wiki itself is a fraud, it's just the users who could use a spanking.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:37 pm

I've had kids use Wikipedia as a source in research papers.... It's sad, really...

iatneH · Post by **iatneH** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:39 pm

...I sometimes use it when looking for stuff like PSP/GP2X development....

TalkingOctopus · Post by **TalkingOctopus** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:41 pm

I find wikipedia really useful for computer science stuff. It contains all sorts of good info on algorithms and theory. How is the internet much different than wikipedia? For the most part, anyone can post whatever they want. Using the internet for research is rarely a good idea.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:45 pm

TalkingOctopus wrote:I find wikipedia really useful for computer science stuff. It contains all sorts of good info on algorithms and theory. How is the internet much different than wikipedia? For the most part, anyone can post whatever they want. Using the internet for research is rarely a good idea.

The internet encompasses a lot of legit sources such as think tanks, newspapers and government documents. It's not that the internet is "rarely" a good research source, it's that people aren't critical with their sources.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:57 pm

The whole problem with sources could easily be solved if people could be held responsible for the type of information they post at wikipedia. ie keep inserting false information into a topic on the holocaust and there's your real name along with contact information to verify that it is your real name.

I saw a report on CNN not long ago that reported on acts of slander on wikipedia. If you want to slander someone famous or an historical figure for no apparent reason and pass it off as fact than you should again expect a call from that person's lawyer.

And Ghegs: no I didn't run into this stuff too often while at school but there was one memorable encounter. I remember a kid in my class that wrote a very favorable report on the Ku Klux Klan. Basically he wrote a bunch of stuff about them being "defenders of our white christian nation' and turned it in for a grade. His sources? Hate websites and hate literature. After he made his oral presentation, a few hispanic and black students were waiting for him outside the classroom. heh

df0notfound · Post by **df0notfound** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:47 pm

hate how people try and plug their failed ecommunities and stuff on there, if its dead its probably irrelevant

Davey · Post by **Davey** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:56 pm

TalkingOctopus wrote:I find wikipedia really useful for computer science stuff. It contains all sorts of good info on algorithms and theory.

I'd agree there. Part of that might be because you can't BS an algorithm or portray it in a biased way - it is what it is. Your opinion about quicksort won't change quicksort.

Wikipedia is a really great starting point if you're unfamiliar with a topic. If nothing else, it can provide you with enough information to get a basic understanding of a topic, and that way you know what to look for when delving deeper into the subject. Being that I'm not a complete moron most of the time, I'd never cite it or consider it a credible academic source.

UnscathedFlyingObject · Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:08 am

Acid King wrote:I've had kids use Wikipedia as a source in research papers.... It's sad, really...

I used Wiki for my last research paper, but that was for one of those classes you can't care too much about, african art. Plus, I was sure the information wasn't bullshit.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:14 am

UnscathedFlyingObject wrote:I used Wiki for my last research paper, but that was for one of those classes you can't care too much about, african art.

You can care if you're an art major.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:17 am

UnscathedFlyingObject wrote:
Acid King wrote:I've had kids use Wikipedia as a source in research papers.... It's sad, really...
I used Wiki for my last research paper, but that was for one of those classes you can't care too much about, african art. Plus, I was sure the information wasn't bullshit.

How could you be sure? Did you physically go to a library and verify every piece of information on the wiki? If you did do this, why didn't you use those books as a source instead?

Did you even consult with someone who has knowledge of African art and ask them if the information seemed legit?

Andi · Post by **Andi** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:34 am

BulletMagnet wrote:
UnscathedFlyingObject wrote:I used Wiki for my last research paper, but that was for one of those classes you can't care too much about, african art.
You can care if you're an art major.

I go to art school. Nobody can care. Ha!

And to be fair to Wikipedia, aren't there plenty of books in the library written by people with non-objective views of the subject? You have to filter through bullshit wherever you research, not just on Wikipedia.

The n00b wrote:I remember a kid in my class that wrote a very favorable report on the Ku Klux Klan. Basically he wrote a bunch of stuff about them being "defenders of our white christian nation' and turned it in for a grade. His sources? Hate websites and hate literature. After he made his oral presentation, a few hispanic and black students were waiting for him outside the classroom. heh

On a seperate note: does this kid deserve to get beat up because he was mislead by some websites on the internet (or maybe his parents)? Turning a blind eye and chuckling while this kid was mistreated (regardless of how he provoked it) seems pretty unfair.

UnscathedFlyingObject · Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:47 am

They have some books about african art in my school, but I was feeling too lazy to go pick up more of 'em. Anyways, I don't think my prof is going to fault me too badly for one bad apple (even if it's the first work quoted

) when I used many reliable sources including books, university websites, articles, etc.

steveovig · Post by **steveovig** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:59 am

Acid King wrote:I've had kids use Wikipedia as a source in research papers.... It's sad, really...

All of my papers this past semester used wiki. Oh well

Ganelon · Post by **Ganelon** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:03 am

If college students are using Wikipedia, that's just really sad... Not a good habit for high school students either.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:14 am

Every one of my professors in college was a hardass when it came to using the internet as a source. Information had to come from a credible website and if the author didn't quote credible sources, the author himself had to be a noted expert on the subject. I guess nowadays "but I saw it on wikipedia!" is credible enough though.

As for the kid who got supposedly beat up for his "enlightening" views on the KKK, I think he learned a powerful lesson. Unlike the kids who like to goof around on wikipedia, he experienced the punishment that comes from spreading potentially harmful information. I don't feel sorry for him. He knew exactly what he was doing. He only cited sources that were in line with his views on the subject. There was no curiousity or effort on his part to get the whole story which is kinda dumb because anyone could view a KKK rally and know exactly what they are all about. He can't blame his parents for his crap either. He's in college, there's a point where you need to grow a brain already.

I actually still hold this kid in a much higher regard than stupid wiki users. He put his reputation and academic credentials on the line when he made that report. Sure lots of people can be racist idiots behind the anonymous nature of wikipedia but he did it out in public where he is fully capable of receiving the consequences of his actions.

jp · Post by jp » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:29 am

According to wikipedia, if you do not level up your weapons in Radiant Silvergun the second to last boss will just explode and the final boss will be invincible and will time out giving the player the bad ending.

Didn't know RS had multiple endings... but ok.

GaijinPunch · Post by **GaijinPunch** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:34 am

Acid King wrote:I've had kids use Wikipedia as a source in research papers.... It's sad, really...

WTF... are you a teacher or something?

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:37 pm

Well, wikipedia can be fun at times, but i suppose George Orwell is revolting in his tomb...

It is also true that i can access my university's online resources from home, so it's not particularly difficult to get sound material on a subject (provided that i am versed in the specific preliminary knowledge, of course).Of course, it is still relatively easy to find good (and sometimes excellent) sources, if a person sits down and looks for them, much like in a normal library.

Wikipedia, i would say, is the equivalent of those high school handbooks which weren't that good and accurate, because the authors wanted to cash in quick and easy money...Dunno if you ever had such a case in your scholastic career, but of course, "easy knowledge" (i'm up for better definitions) has always existed in some way.

PFG 9000 · Post by **PFG 9000** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:48 pm

Davey wrote:Wikipedia is a really great starting point if you're unfamiliar with a topic. If nothing else, it can provide you with enough information to get a basic understanding of a topic, and that way you know what to look for when delving deeper into the subject. Being that I'm not a complete moron most of the time, I'd never cite it or consider it a credible academic source.

This is how I feel as well. If you're looking for superficial information for personal knowledge, it's a good resource. If you need information for a factual paper or presentation, it's a great place to see which ideas you need to pursue further...but I don't think it should ever be used as a source itself.

I've found it frustrating that factual submitted articles can be overturned by people with nothing more than an grudge to go on.

captain ahar · Post by **captain ahar** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:52 pm

i've sourced it before. for pop lit/culture, it was the easiest method of sourcing btvs information.

on that note though, i would never source it for historical reference. pop culture seems okay though.

D · Post by D » Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:16 pm

The Fraud that is internet

I think you know what I'm getting at right?

It's like discovering a flat tire on a car that is totally wrecked.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:19 pm

GaijinPunch wrote:
Acid King wrote:I've had kids use Wikipedia as a source in research papers.... It's sad, really...
WTF... are you a teacher or something?

I'm a teachers assistant... or was, since the semester is over tomorrow and I'm not getting funding for next semester.

judesalmon · Post by **judesalmon** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:02 pm

Any specific examples you could give n00b?

Remember, history is written by the winners. You are a history major sure, but does that mean you are necessarily right? Of course not - even knowledge can be subjective.

What you assert as your knowledge of history is influenced by many different sources, and the same goes for others.

It is very hard to know the objective truth of a historical subject because every single historical text, contemporary or not, has an angle.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:46 pm

Well Jude usually I went about researching a history paper by reading many different books on the same subject. From all the different points of views on the subject, you can usually glean out a complete and coherant story. Some things cannot be disputed though. Kind of like how even if you read pro-Nazi sources on the Halucaust, you'll still end up thinking "man those are some pretty weak points."

As for specific examples. It wouldn't do any use to give you any. Why should you listen to me over an entry in wikipedia? You'll be taking the word of joe internet over a wikipedia entry written by another joe internet.

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:50 pm

The n00b wrote: As for specific examples. It wouldn't do any use to give you any. Why should you listen to me over an entry in wikipedia? You'll be taking the word of joe internet over a wikipedia entry written by another joe internet.

Yeah, congrats of this damn witty passage, now i'll have "Joe Internet" floating in my head for the next month or so

judesalmon · Post by **judesalmon** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:37 pm

The n00b wrote:As for specific examples. It wouldn't do any use to give you any. Why should you listen to me over an entry in wikipedia? You'll be taking the word of joe internet over a wikipedia entry written by another joe internet.

I would imagine your knowledge of history to be broad, as is my own, it would just be interesting to see what articles you felt to be inaccurate, and see what those inaccuracies were. I wouldn't take your opinion over anyone else's and vice versa.

Have you tried editing any of the offending articles? And if you have, what sort of response are you receiving?

I'm not getting at you, I'm just interested in this topic.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:48 pm

Randorama wrote:Yeah, congrats of this damn witty passage, now i'll have "Joe Internet" floating in my head for the next month or so

Hmm, wonder if he's related to "Joe Shmupoe?"

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:05 am

judesalmon wrote:
The n00b wrote:As for specific examples. It wouldn't do any use to give you any. Why should you listen to me over an entry in wikipedia? You'll be taking the word of joe internet over a wikipedia entry written by another joe internet.

I would imagine your knowledge of history to be broad, as is my own, it would just be interesting to see what articles you felt to be inaccurate, and see what those inaccuracies were. I wouldn't take your opinion over anyone else's and vice versa.

Have you tried editing any of the offending articles? And if you have, what sort of response are you receiving?

I'm not getting at you, I'm just interested in this topic.

I felt the Texas Rangers article to be extremely lacking. Texas ranger atrocities are well documented so I wondered why this wasn't as well documented as it is. Also going into every civil rights group entry on wikipedia and labeling them racist seems a tad inaccurate. I think this is due to malicious users.

The users defending the article on reconquista(mexico) seem to be holding the line, barely.

The Dresden article, which I read today, was really really well put together and accurate, as far as I could tell. So I gotta give that one to wikipedia. The article could have devolved into a "nazis deserved it" piece but it didn't.

I'm getting some stuff together to edit the texas rangers article but it's going to take some time. I don't want to take an incomplete article and complete with nothing but inaccurate information. I'll hit the library and see if I can dig up anything. It'll be kinda stupid though if, the minute I posted it, someone went in and just deleted the information out of idiocy. Wikipedia is stupid that way.