Re: a little something for all you wikipedia-lovers

Peter T. Daniels skreiv:

On Jan 28, 2:04 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels skreiv:

So you -- of all -- outrule Wikipedia as a source for the common wisdom
of our days? Or as a source for research on the validity of Wikipedia
itself?

I'm not sure what your "of all" means, but yes, for common wisdom it's useless because it can change from minute to minute to reflect any individual's opinion or prejudice or misinformation of the moment.

Your opinion on Wikipedia seems to be determined by the supposed fact that the absence of an editing authority equals the absence of a filter to the quality and validity of the entries. Now, as all those individual contributions are recorded and available along with the dates and times of the entries and the profiles of the contributors, Wikipedia seems to provide a source to the development in "common opinion", both deeper and wider than any published encyclopedia, for exactly the sort of work where you would recommend the use of encyclopedic literature.

The "of all" means that I would have expected you, with your outspoken concern for the commonness of the entries, to see that.

(Yes, I know I'm cheating by taking the word "common" in a different meaning. And still I'm not, that's what I meant by "wider and deeper".)

Research on its validity, if that were the topic of a college essay or term paper, would have to be conducted with reference to it, of course.

Exactly. The EB is a good source for research on entries in EB. Wikipedia is a good source for research on entries in Wikipedia. What good does a general ban on one but not the other do?


--
Trond Engen
- ate his first encyclopedia before he could walk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: John Sterling
    ... Everything makes Wikipedia, which is one reason why it's so great. ... Obviously the very nature of writing encyclopedia entries is very ... problematic as one has to strike a difficult balance but some of them ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: John Sterling
    ... are hyperlinks to the sources on an entry I try that instead. ... Obviously the very nature of writing encyclopedia entries is very ... fair to compare Wikipedia to JSTOR (not that you were necessarily doing ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • BLAIR JOINS GOD AS A VICTIM OF CYBERNUTS
    ... Blair's entry in online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been vandalised with "quite offensive" entries, ... But the firm is now being forced to protect a number of subjects from vandals - which is undermining its commitment to freedom of expression. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: (OT): Can You Trust Wikipedia?
    ... But Sloan doesn't need to fix mistakes in his Wiki entries. ... > Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article ... > happy about amateur contributions in a vehicle like Wikipedia. ... There isn't more than a formal resemblance between anything that Sam ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Study shows Wikipedia science ~ accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica
    ... The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as ... The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on ... scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia ... "But reviewers also found many factual errors, ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading