WikiWacki is fast and eay to use. Unfortunately the things that it purports as its strength also allow some very biased editing to occur.
I always reccomend further sourcing when using WikiWacki to back-up any info found there.
Here is a rather long article on what WikiWacki has evolved into.
I like wikipedia a lot and it has been compared by professionals with the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is also mentioned in the linked article. Here another link :
news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+ … 97332.html
The link posted by the OP seems to have a strong bias against wikipedia. Especially the paragraph below seems that this article was a personal revenge of the author due to his bad experience with a wikipedia administrator. As this abuse of administrator rights is not correct, I hardly doubt that this can be generalized for the entire wikipedia.
[quote=“Joel Leyden”]
Now try performing a search for the Wikipedia user Israelbeach. You won’t find that Wikipedia user because he was assaulted daily with personal attacks by another Wikipedia user who works there as an Wikipedia administrator. This administrator responded to Israelbeach regarding the issue of Father’s Rights in Ra’anana, Israel with: “Save your diatribe for local forums.” This administrator calling herself “Woggly,” a self-proclaimed feminist, would not tolerate any edit from a father’s right’s activist who was quoting three separate news sources to illustrate that children’s right’s is indeed an issue in the Welfare Department of Ra’anana.
Israelbeach is aka Joel Leyden, the author of this story. Woggly is a Wikipedia administrator who tried to hide her identity from those she attacked. Woggly aka Gili Bar-Hillel works as a Hebrew translator in Tel Aviv.[/quote]
I got the same feeling. Wikipedia may not be perfectly reliable, but the author of that article clearly seems to have a serious personal grudge and is retaliating. I believe Wikipedia’s more reliable than he is.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”][quote=“ratlung”] The link posted by the OP seems to have a strong bias against wikipedia. Especially the paragraph below seems that this article was a personal revenge of the author due to his bad experience [/quote]I got the same feeling. Wikipedia may not be perfectly reliable, but the author of that article clearly seems to have a serious personal grudge and is retaliating. I believe Wikipedia’s more reliable than he is.[/quote]Gee Guys…given the title of the article…did you really think it was a Love Poem about WikiWacki…? :loco:
Specific issues are mentioned and commented upon.
In my understanding this is pointing out the possibility that there is a systemic problem with WikiWacki that bears addressing.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Gee Guys…given the title of the article…did you really think it was a Love Poem about WikiWacki…? :loco:
Specific issues are mentioned and commented upon.
In my understanding this is pointing out the possibility that there is a systemic problem with WikiWacki that bears addressing.[/quote]
Not really, at least according to the guys from Nature. And considering that wikipedia is only 10 years old, I think the information given is damn good.
And I rather believe a scientific study conducted by independent experts under the supervision of professionals rather than a WikiWackiWacko writing some hate mail because of his bad personal experience. And the cirucumstances around his experience are left in the dark.
Check this page and follow up as best you can. It’s a lesson in the problems with wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart
I don’t seem to be able to access this page. But certainly, I never said it is perfect, and there are probably some articles that have flawes. But those are outliers and don’t bear any statistical significance.
i use it often, i wouldn’t bet my last dollar on the accuracy of something i found there, but how often can you say that of any written word anyway? usually notations are shown when articles are disputed or references are lacking which is good and all you can ask for considering the nature of it. the bottom line is that if it weren’t for its open source nature it wouldn’t be there and that in my opinion would be a loss.
Worth checking out your own specialist subject on WikiThingy to see how it treats something you know about. I’m currently checking out the entry for the Provisional IRA. Now that’s about as controversial as it gets and there will be plenty of opinions I’m sure! Thought of it after reading this, about as inaccurate (and comically irrelevant in parts) an article as I have ever read on NI. Let’s see how Wiki treats it… [EDIT: a reasonable account, IMHO.]
Thanks for that! My favorite article about Wikipedia to date is still “The Book Stops Here” from Wired in March 2005. Pretty long, but interesting - especially the comparative take on encyclopedias:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?pg=1&topic=wiki&topic_set=
One of the most hotly debated topics in academia right now is whether or not students should be allowed to cite Wikipedia in research papers. The idea may sound preposterous to many, but the fact is that news organizations cite Wikipedia all the time. Check this out:
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2004/10/22/JourFutureWikipedia/
And should anyone believe Wikipedia to be flawless, they would do well to read its own “General Disclaimer” and “Use At Your Own Risk” pages…
Multiple authors = multiple ethical points of view. I’ve a particular problem with the negative tone of the Breastfeeding article - it could be more positive and encouraging for new mothers rather than focussing on problems and difficulties. Then again others may find it balanced. I’d edit it if I didn’t have 3 part-time jobs and the kids, groceries, housework etc. I also wonder about people who rave on for ages about tenuous links in obscure online games when theyre aren’t enough articles on obscure early 20th Century Opera singers 