Wikis

Hersfold

Hersfold

TNPer
I'm supposed to be writing an essay on a modern trend or phenomena for my AP Literature class. I've chosen to talk about the rising number of "Wiki" sites, where of course anyone can edit the information they contain, and how they can be treated as a reliable (or not) source of information. The wonderfully ironic thing about all this is I'm not allowed to use Wikipedia to conduct my research because my teacher doesn't believe it to be a credible source of information. Go figure.

So part of my research will be talking to you lot - a more or less random group of people conveniently placed all over the world. Hopefully there will be enough viewpoints on this to give me some useful info that I can't find in the many articles that have been written about it.

So, what are all your opinions on wikis? Not just Wikipedia or NS Wiki, but any site based upon that general format (this doesn't include blogs). Do you find the information to usually be credible? Have you ever seen a page that has been vandalized? Do you find them to be an acceptable means of conducting research? What do/don't you like about them, etc.?

If you do not wish me to quote you in my essay once I get around to writing it (it's not due until a week after Thanksgiving), please say so in your post. Otherwise, since this topic is publically viewable, I will assume you don't mind your words being copied elsewhere. I will provide adequate citations (obviously I can't give your actual names, but you get the point), and I will give credit where it is due. I will be happy to send you a copy of the essay if you wish.

Thanks!
 
Hmm good topic for an essay, I will give you a first hand account of when me and edited it. It had the flase information up for about 5 min before it got changed back by a wiki editor. Also very controversial articles are locked for editing often. And incomplete articles are almost always marked.

I use wiki as a place to start but, I think it is a way better idea to use the sources of the wikipedia articles.

hoped this helped
 
I generally find wiki articles to be highly informative, except when they aren't informative at all. Generally, when they do inform, they provide other sources to back up what they say, giving an air of legitimacy to the information.

I believe that Wikis are a sign of the rapid changes in the way we interact with information that is already upon us. Soon enough, access to a wide variety of information may come to be viewed as an undeniable right, with the potential problem of incentive to the sources of the information.
 
I actually had to write a creative essay about how the accessability of information and ease of communication over the Internet is slowly causing us to drift into our own realities, thus paradoxically becoming more isolated as we use the Internet more and more.

I got a C on that essay X_X
 
Our lecturers dont count Wiki as a valid source of information, but it is good if you want a simple understanding of something and form a base for further research.

And isnt it like an average of 4 minutes after posting an article on wiki, it is changed by someone else. <-- that may not be true, just one of those things you hear :)

As for vandalism, I believe the profile of Donald Rumsfeld had a picture of a monkey for short time :lol:
 
Fair Warning: This is one of my pet subjects.

I believe that Wiki entries are like any other source of information. If they do not contain sources, they should be taken as opinion. It could be well informed, truthful opinion or it could be radical, skewed opinion. But it is opinion none the less.

As with any piece of written material that presents itself as factual, if it provides sources, it is up to the reader to follow those sources and to judge if they have been applied properly. In a Wiki entry, the sources are often hotlinked and this makes source checking easier.

A common pitfall of Wiki entries seems to be using sources out of context. In other words, if you are reading a Wiki entry that tells you "2 + 2 = 4" and the source is hotlinked, make sure you look at that source. You may find that the source for that "fact" is someone's blog where they presented an opinion. It doesn't mean that the information presented is false. It just means that the information presented is unsupported in the article.

Something I've noticed about the rise of Wiki (and electronic Journals in general) is that it's awakened people's skepticism in a good way. People understand that the electronic media is accessible to a far greater number of people for both learning and publishing than the world of print media. And they seem to understand that greater accessibility translates into fewer controls. So people tend to take Wiki entries "with a grain of salt." I believe this is something that should be done with every piece of information we receive. However, it is not often the case when one is reading printed material. Perhaps there is something about the perceived insubstantiality of electronic media that makes us less prone to take it "on faith."

We have grown up with text books being our ticket to good grades in school. It seldom occurs to us to question what is written in a text book. It's not because we believe it to be the absolute truth, but more because it is no longer in a student's best interests to question what is printed. This is a bad thing, IMO, but a subject for a later date. Some how this acceptance of what we need to know to succeed in school translates into "blind faith" in printed material. We are trained to believe the printed material simply because it is printed rather than to understand that all things are written by humans who can make mistakes. We forget to check sources in printed material.

I also believe that the rise of electronic information is combining with the lack of skepticism in a disturbing way. People have begun to take film and television as fact. Visual media offers no means of source checking, yet people base whole belief systems on a "docudrama" they see on TV. [/off topic rant]

Back to Wiki...
I think your teacher's insistance on you not using Wiki as a source is telling you that he/she comes from the generation of skeptics about the accuracy of all electronic media and especially one where "anyone off the street" can make an entry and present it as fact. This partially comes from the time when electronic media first became prevalent and there was a mad rush to get information online. Even the most respected sceintific journals were prone to mistakes in translating the information from print to pixel.

My personal experience with Wiki has generally been good in that it is an excellent "source of sources" no matter what information the Wiki entry contains. An example would be if I looked up information in Wiki and the entry appeared blatantly biased and possibly false. I could then go to the sources they used with that knowledge to remind me that the sources either support the position or they are being "misinterpreted." I also love the collapsible overviews given and the cross referencing of Wiki entries. Properly used, I think Wiki is a great tool.

I have run into vandalism on NSwiki and on WWII (Holocaust denial groups) Wiki entries only. The profanity is a dead give away. heh

Sorry... You can all wake up now. :blush:
 
I find it interesting for general knowledge and a good start for research. But I wouldn't base an essay on it. As for vandalism I've seen a fair bit and an increasing number of articles seem to be locked.
 
The academic types usually loathe wikipedia, mostly because it puts them out of business. The idea of having your thoughts heard and accepted as fact by those who didn't surrender themselves to the system and racking up a ton of student loans makes them insecure.

This is the new information society, it pits those who are willfull cogs of the grand machine against the common person. Obviously the privileged would be disgusted at the idea of layperson having an opinion and ideas held to the same degree as theirs.
 
Im all for the leftie side of things, but at the end of the day, it is just opinion, at least academics give their opinion and then back it up, but when sources include blogs etc. you dont know if they know hitler from adam, i would rather take the view of a pompos [sp?] old academic with his/her justifications than a 15yr old with a blog and common sense.
 
Ronin Warriors:
Im all for the leftie side of things, but at the end of the day, it is just opinion, at least academics give their opinion and then back it up, but when sources include blogs etc. you dont know if they know hitler from adam, i would rather take the view of a pompos [sp?] old academic with his/her justifications than a 15yr old with a blog and common sense.
Click to expand...
This isn't about left or right, it's just the same old power struggle. Write any academic essay and half the marks are about structure, the most notable of which incident is the SoKal Affair.

Wiki and non wiki links provided:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
http://www.drizzle.com/~jwalsh/sokal/

Read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," it's not about actual knowledge because that is always corrupted by power and class; it's about the capacity for comprehension. All the academics know are big elitist words to confuse and put off the standard layperson. Any person who likes sports can follow politics; you have the teams, the strategies, the players; it's just sold in such a way to put people off for whatever agenda, which goes for education too. All of us can have college or university degrees but we still need people to clean our sewers, these are modes to create a class of people who will do that and accept it as "all they can do." To state that there is the "right idea" and the "wrong idea" depending on what title the person has, says more about the person saying it than the actual idea.
 
That seemed to be a lefty rant which is why i mention it, i happen to agree with you about the creating a divide, being a slightly leftist myself but....

I certainly dont take an academics word as the law on that subject, there are always other researchers with just as much influence that fight the other way, so they should accounted for. My argument [and i figure most academics or whoever] is that on wiki by and large it is just opinion, and at least with a researcher you get the background coverage and references, and stats, or whatever to back them up, whereas someone posting a blog or wiki stating their opinion as fact without any background is less valid in that it does not have support, for instance would you read an article on the History of the British Monarchy on someones blog / wiki or go to a National Library or Museum or the Website of either, or probably the Queen has a blog or something :P

.....oh ive lost my train of thought really
 
Would I go to an oil company for information about global warming? What constitutes as background? A piece of paper from a name brand school proving this person is or is not smart (I mean W was a Yale graduate after all and we all know how hard he worked to get that degree.)

Statistics, polls, surveys, think tank essays? Like they don't have an agenda too...

Left means left wing, meaning for a more socialist economics and progressive social outlook. I am not a socialist; I think government is a bigger problem than corporations. I am not progressive; I think political correction is brain washing.
 
Good god, I didn't realise it was axe grinding season.

All hail the age of Wiki! Those privileged academics, for too long they have hidden behind their research, and peer reviews, and words that can be found in any dictionary. For too long they have had to provide a factual basis for their conclusions! The giant thumb of logical and scientific enquiry shall forever be lifted from the down trodden majority!

I ask you, what have the scientists ever done for us?!

edit - my apologies Hers, I didn't answer your question, so thrilled I was about the rise of the era of tabloid facts, I forgot.

Wiki's all right if you take it with a pinch of salt in my opinion. Generally if an article is well referenced, a take it as a sign that its pretty reliable. I wouldn't use it for anything in which the informations accuracy was paramount, but of daily musings it usually my first stop.
 
Ronin Warriors:
Im all for the leftie side of things, but at the end of the day, it is just opinion, at least academics give their opinion and then back it up, but when sources include blogs etc. you dont know if they know hitler from adam, i would rather take the view of a pompos [sp?] old academic with his/her justifications than a 15yr old with a blog and common sense.
Click to expand...
It's not so hard to tell whether a fifteen-year old blogwriter is talking through his youth. But if he's a genius fifteen-year old who backs his stuff up, then that's different.

Namyeknom:
Good god, I didn't realise it was axe grinding season.

All hail the age of Wiki! Those privileged academics, for too long they have hidden behind their research, and peer reviews, and words that can be found in any dictionary. For too long they have had to provide a factual basis for their conclusions! The giant thumb of logical and scientific enquiry shall forever be lifted from the down trodden majority!

I ask you, what have the scientists ever done for us?!
Click to expand...

Science thrives on free and available information. In purity it is the most democratic construct of man imaginable. What we need to go along with the information age is better critical thinking skills.
 
I happen to agree with the idea that we need better critical thinking skills (from UK).

But the rest of the pseudo-marxist stuff about class division via big words is just that, IMO: A pseudo-marxist rant (from Mr_sniffles).

I am, however a member of that dread ruling scienitific class, so you may not believe me. I could just be trying to fool you with big words.

In defense of the big words used in sceince, it's about precision. Terms we use in everyday life have a different meaning in the sceintific world and it's often less confusing to just have a new word.

Example: Work has a very precise meaning in Physics but it's a rather general verb/noun in the english language. Quark isn't a "big word" unless you never have occasion to use it. But it does have a rather precise meaning to those in the sceintific world.

This is not an advocation of "jaragon" which is often a barrier to understanding and is actually looked down on in many sceintific circles while being simultaneously praised and ridiculed in business and government circles.

Synergy does not have a precise meaning. Energy does have a precise meaning.

Sorry Hers, for the OT rant.
 
Dark wins.

Wikipedia (and the internet in general) is a wonderful tool, when used properly. This is the information age, and suddenly we have lots and lots of information and, thusly, tools at our disposable that were simply not there for previous generations. Like any tool ever, though, just how beneficial they are depends on how they are used. You would not used a hammer to screw a nail.

I do agree that better critical thinking skills are necessary. With the advent of not just the internet and Wikipedia, but 500 channels in every home, tabloids and hundreds of magazines of varying credibility, advanced marketing and sophisticated political manipulation of all the information and information resources we have suddenly at our disposal, it is more important than ever before that the average person be able to sort through all of this and have a reasonable idea of what is really trustworthy and what isn't.

In my mind, the focus of education (at least from the k-12 range) should be simply teaching people how to think, more than just rote memorization. It is impossible to teach everything (especially since so much is constantly changing and expanding), but it is possible to at least give people the tools to navigate the modern world.
 
Heft:
In my mind, the focus of education (at least from the k-12 range) should be simply teaching people how to think, more than just rote memorization. It is impossible to teach everything (especially since so much is constantly changing and expanding), but it is possible to at least give people the tools to navigate the modern world.
Click to expand...
I love you, Heft. I've been preaching this to mostly deaf ears for at least 15 years. It's good to know I'm not the only loon on the street corner.
 
All standardized tests are is critical thinking. If critical thinking skills were truly taught, standardized test scores would skyrocket.

This a bit off-topic, though, I suppose.
 
Well, I figured as much, I just couldn't stop myself from pointing out how absurd standardized testing really is in many cases.
 
Namyeknom:
Good god, I didn't realise it was axe grinding season.

All hail the age of Wiki! Those privileged academics, for too long they have hidden behind their research, and peer reviews, and words that can be found in any dictionary. For too long they have had to provide a factual basis for their conclusions! The giant thumb of logical and scientific enquiry shall forever be lifted from the down trodden majority!

I ask you, what have the scientists ever done for us?!

edit - my apologies Hers, I didn't answer your question, so thrilled I was about the rise of the era of tabloid facts, I forgot.

Wiki's all right if you take it with a pinch of salt in my opinion. Generally if an article is well referenced, a take it as a sign that its pretty reliable. I wouldn't use it for anything in which the informations accuracy was paramount, but of daily musings it usually my first stop.
Click to expand...
I never said scientists have never done anything good, I just don't think they should be held to a higher threshold than the rest. The idea of having the most degrees making you the smartest isn't true, nor is the idea of corruption with the "research and peer reviews," the soKal affair proved that immensely along with lots of other examples.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

My rant (I'll grant you that) wasn't marxist, it was democratic. There is division of labour but wiki isn't solely written by nutsos and vandalizers of all colours, there are academics but it's presented in an equal way for all to see and understand if they chose to. They're also quicker and more indepth about current events, there are things that academics won't touch which are profoundly important too; ie- the racial divisions within the OJ Simpson case.

I have nothing wrong with science and academia, they can research and boldly go whereever to their heart's intent; I just don't think most of them are suited to share their discoveries with the common person.
 
edit - my apologies Hers, I didn't answer your question, so thrilled I was about the rise of the era of tabloid facts, I forgot.
Click to expand...

No problem, I got plenty of useful stuff out of this. :)

Thanks to everyone who posted - I'm writing the essay right now, and I'll post it as soon as I'm done.
 
Wiki Wrong?​

“No Google! No Wikipedia! Use OPAC!” This command, a favorite phrase of name omitted, Media Specialist at Liberty High School, has become legend among students. Teachers reinforce these guidelines, forbidding the use of Wikipedia, Google, or other search engines as research sites, limiting students only to the school’s cataloging systems (such as OPAC) or internet research databases paid for by the school. Stating that sites such as Wikipedia are “unreliable,” “prone to vandalism,” and not “a valid source of information” (Ronin) teachers across the nation impose similar restrictions. But students and some teachers regard Wikipedia and other similar sites as useful sources of information. “I’ll use Wikipedia,” says name omitted, “it’s a good secondary [research] source.” So why is it so hated when used in an academic setting? Considering this disapproval, why is it then the fastest growing and most popular research site on the internet, with “more than 3m articles” in “200-odd languages” with “more ‘visitors’ than the online New York Times, CNN and other mainstream sites” (The wiki principle)? There must be something in the ability to edit information at will that attracts people – a feeling of power, control over the supposed truth; a moral obligation to make sure the information is correct; the freedom to do as you wish; the chance to have your name associated with great academic minds… it could be any of these, or none at all. Perhaps the only way to tell is to ask Wikipedia itself, and give Wiki a chance. (I would, except that I’m forbidden to cite Wikipedia as a source. Wonderfully ironic.)

Wikipedia, and wiki sites in general, allow users to collectively add and edit content (Kaplan). This has been a hot debate point about the usefulness of wikis, but is most probably the main attracting feature of the wiki site. Anybody, from a multi-PhD professor at an ivy-league university to a five-year old kid with a keyboard, can log in and edit the information on the site, or start a new article of their own. On the positive side, this provides a wide range of views on any one subject, and allows new information to be added almost immediately. Wikipedia provides an “In the News” section on its main page, documenting current events from around the world, reported only minutes after the official releases come from sites such as CNN and BBC. These news reports link to other Wikipedia pages to provide necessary background information about the event. Unfortunately, this openness to editing also gives way to vandalism. Generally such vandalism is obvious – “The profanity is a dead give away” (Darkesia) – and is fixed rapidly, but some is invariably missed and remains on the site for some time. One well-documented case of Wikipedia vandalism was left untouched for 132 days, implying that John Seigenthaler, journalist and former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was a Soviet national involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy (The wiki principle). Fortunately, these are rare occurrences. One person attempted to test the group of dedicated wiki editors with a small amount of vandalism of his own: “It [the article] had the false information up for about 5 minutes before it got changed back by a wiki editor” (dont pick it up). Articles commonly abused are often protected against vandalism by locking out edit powers to unregistered members – for example, the biography of President George W. Bush recently displayed the golden lock icon denoting its “semi-protected” status before such public notices were removed by the Wikimedia Foundation (eWeek). Unprotected articles are frequently patrolled by dedicated volunteers and administrators, to ensure that their information is kept accurate. In the event something does get abused, the Wiki software provides a history of all previous versions of the page, so as to easily identify what changes were made where and by whom. Repeated vandals get banned from the site to prevent future abuses, for the protection of those who edit pages for their improvement rather than their destruction. This freedom is by far one of the most attractive features of the site.

But what if something isn’t caught? A piece of false information that sounds credible and might even be backed up by other information could be allowed to remain in an article for months, unnoticed by the general user and the Wikimedia staff. How is it certain that the pages are actually correct? Nature Magazine asked that very question, and compared a random selection of pages from Wikipedia to a selection of articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica, the historical standard for all academic knowledge. With the final score standing at 162 errors in Wikipedia and 123 errors in the sainted Encyclopedia, the editors of the massive print volume claimed victory (The wiki principle). But can they? The Encyclopedia’s main selling point is that it is supposedly the most accurate repository of information available (since the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy hasn’t been written yet, on Earth, at least). Yet apparently, it’s only a third better than an internet site that contains information entered by a wide conglomeration of people. And Wikipedia provides far more information than the Encyclopedia does - the aforementioned news pages, biographies of famous people, various places not well-known enough to be found in a volume of the Encyclopedia’s renown. None of these exist in the gigantic series, but they can all be found in Wikipedia. Better yet, Wikipedia doesn’t weigh 50 pounds, cost an arm and a leg, or become obsolete in five years. It’s a readily available internet site, free to anyone, and constantly being updated. And according to Nature’s study, almost as accurate. I don’t know about you, but I find it far easier to look something up on a computer than I do searching the hard way in a massive book. A few keystrokes and you’ve found what you’re looking for, while the old scholar still has his nose shoved deep in the spine of the Encyclopedia.

The main redeeming trait for those who hold a level of disdain for the online encyclopedia is the wide range of citations it offers. Pages on Wikipedia can generally be placed into one of two categories: pages with no citation, and pages with plenty. Those in the former group are clearly labeled as such – an administrator, upon finding such a page, will place it in a category titled simply “Articles needing Citation.” They display a small box at the top of the article indicating this; where one such unsourced statement is made, it will be marked like so: [citation needed]. This mark links to one of Wikipedia’s several policy pages, a guideline for citing information within Wikipedia articles, worked out amongst many frequent users and administrators of the site. For the pages that do have citation, they generally tend to have a wide range of sources to back up whatever information is included. Key terms within the article itself often link to other Wikipedia pages to provide further information. This wide range of sources is admitted by those not fond of the information found on Wikipedia: “I use wiki as a place to start but, I think it is a way better idea to use the sources of the Wikipedia articles,” says one such person (dont pick it up). Wikipedia offers plenty of information for everyone; even for those who don’t trust the information on the site, it acts as an excellent starting point to find more “reliable” facts.
The free online encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s description is an apt phrase indeed. If it doesn’t serve as an encyclopedia of information, it can easily serve as an encyclopedia of sources for that information. It does not hold the respect it deserves amongst the educational community. Teachers stand almost afraid of the chance that a given article could have been vandalized moments before a student accesses it. “It’s correct 99% of the time,” says name omitted, “but there’s that 1%.” That 1% - one chance out of a hundred, more probably even less, that a given article could be false. Yet the Encyclopedia Britannica, previously honored as holding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, hasn’t proven to be completely accurate itself – in fact, almost as “inaccurate” as Wikipedia. So why isn’t it accepted by everyone? They may give reasons of their own, but I think it’s because they simply haven’t given Wikipedia a chance.
Click to expand...

I directly quoted Darkesia, Ronin Warriors, and DPIU - those posts I didn't quote, and the other parts of those I did weren't bad, in fact I used them to come up with several of my ideas. Thanks again to everyone - not only did you lot make this essay a lot easier to write, it was far more entertaining as well. This is one of few essays I've actually enjoyed writing. Thanks for your help. :)

As a note, the name omitted above is that of my Media Specialist. I didn't tell her that I'd be posting this essay on the internet, so I don't feel it right to include her name with it without her consent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top