D2k Sardaukar Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I watched the program on Dutch TV and found it very interesting. Backlight, 'tegenlicht' in Dutch, has interesting programs.The Truth According To Wikipedia The program talks about Wikipedia, which I guess we all use here from time to time, and gives different peoples opinions (pro and anti) about it.My opinion about Wikipedia is; It's a great resource with information about all kind of things, but cannot (and should not) be your only information source, especially on important manners that can (deeply) effect your own opinion/look on things. The more computer related articles I trust more on truth, haha. One 'anti-wiki-person' in the program has an interesting point with 'the cult of the amateurs'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatar Khan Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Yeah I heard that it is just whole bunch of grade 9 students writing it. However, it often cites things, and I saw and article that a German scientists sat down and took all leading encyclopedias and checked them, and than checked Wikipedia and found it to be more accurate and updated than all other ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Anyone more than vaguely familiar with how Wikipedia works and with any sort of reading comprehension can sift the factual and verifiable from the dubious and opinionated. The only issue then is if someone decides to insert lies which they can cite, which is harder to spot.Static encyclopaedias may indeed be better than Wikipedia's worst articles, but actually, encyclopaedia articles on more controversial topics are still very much coloured with the biases of the editors, who can easily go unchallenged. Plus, WP has better coverage. Ultimately, no encyclopaedia should be your last port of call, except maybe for really plain information like "What latitude is Omsk on?", it's a matter of judging its usefulness as one tool among many.(Not had the chance to watch the video, yet.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokiri-Mentat Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Ditto to what Nema said at the end: encyclopedias in general should not be used for a main reference. Encyclopedia's are a good springboard for further research and brainstorming but were never (to my knowledge) considered acceptable academic sources for major research papers. I still think wikipedia is probably the best encyclopedia out there, and often the sighted sources at the bottom of articles provide a good start for a research topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egeides Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Anyone more than vaguely familiar with how Wikipedia works and with any sort of reading comprehension can sift the factual and verifiable from the dubious and opinionated. The only issue then is if someone decides to insert lies which they can cite, which is harder to spot.Static encyclopaedias may indeed be better than Wikipedia's worst articles, but actually, encyclopaedia articles on more controversial topics are still very much coloured with the biases of the editors, who can easily go unchallenged. I am not sure how one can judge like that about what some author has left out, unless knowing the topic of the article anyway. The issue of editors seems to be placed differently with Wiki, and it seems to be discussed within both groups but it looks thorny.Plus, WP has better coverage. Ultimately, no encyclopaedia should be your last port of call, except maybe for really plain information like "What latitude is Omsk on?", it's a matter of judging its usefulness as one tool among many.I would agree, but the tricky thing is that encyclopedias developed with an opposite goal to cater for (ie. quick overview permitting to go on quickly).I think that it is really just different people who decide what is going to stay out. Wikipedia is a lot about the medium. I think the big "pro" of Wikipedia is how it permits to "surf" knowledge, not strictly that it was thought for "more true than" previous mediums. It brings certain problems and possibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D2k Sardaukar Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Did you guys even watch the documentary? It holds some very interesting points. It even talks about hippy acts in North-California, how cool is that? That the hippies are the builders of the technology for internet and wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egeides Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Thumper:Being more often than not on a dial-up connection, it might wait.If you want to know more about hippies/hackers/cyberpunk/etc relation to computers and Internet, well there is an awesome book (no exaggeration) from Douglas Rushkoff called Cyberia. It's now online right here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D2k Sardaukar Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Thumper:Being more often than not on a dial-up connection, it might wait.Sorry, I didn't know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egeides Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 no big deal :PI gave a look and it's a bit long to go through for me, but overall different parties bring that Wiki = democracy, Wiki = individualism, Wiki = cheap resource, Wiki = unstable quality...It makes many specialists opposing each other, often with what I've heard elsewhere in more sophisticated ways. Sadly messy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.