Hi Mark
So in those parts where you have found inaccuracies what have you done
about it?
If you look to the right-hand side of most wiki entries there is an edit
link so I would assume you've corrected the incorrect entries that you
have found. Have you done so?
The whole point of wikipedia is that it is updated as it is found to
contain inaccuracies which in many ways is better than, for example, the
Encyclopaedia Britannica which is only updated by addendums and
supplements. In fact here's a good one from wikipedia about
Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"The /Britannica/ has had difficulty remaining profitable.^[3]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-EB_encyclopedia-2>
Some articles in earlier editions have been criticised for inaccuracy,
bias, or unqualified contributors.^[5]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-kogan_1958-4>
^[9]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-burr_1911-8>
The accuracy in parts of the present edition has likewise been
questioned,^[1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-kister_1994-0>
^[10]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-Giles_Nature_study_2005-9>
although criticisms have been challenged by /Britannica's/
management".^[11]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Britannica#cite_note-fatally_flawed-10>
As you should be able to see there are also links which can be accessed
as further or supporting sources.
So it would seem that even one of the most highly regarded
encyclopaedias's around is not as accurate as it could be. Does this
mean it's full of lies? I don't think so, it just means that it is used
for general, not specific, information dissemination and that the
information contained within it is not necessarily completely accurate.
If you want a source for a thesis you would, if you were sensible, go to
a specialised journal not wiki. Wiki is probably one of the best places
on the net to go for a general idea about something - from there you can
branch out to other areas which will contain more information and may be
more up to date. Most wiki entries include links and supporting sources.
I think the problem is that there is a certain part of the political
spectrum that views wikipedia with suspicion because it doesn't have the
natural bias present that is a part of the general media - i.e. most
news channels. And because it doesn't have this natural bias, which can
also be said to be full of lies and deceit propagated by the general
news media, there is an effort to brand wikipedia as itself full of
lies. Sounds to me as if certain areas of the political spectrum are a
bit nervous about having a source of information that isn't full of
their own politically bias. As for the other areas - science, maths,
history, philosophy etc. these can be quite easily amended by folks who
are better informed than the original contributors. Such as yourself.
Horse
On 23/10/2010 20:58, 118 wrote:
Hi Horse,
I know something about science. Those things that I am somewhat of an
expert in, that is I have made discoveries and contributions in, I also find
Wiki to be often incorrect. I am sure you find the same in your field of
expertise. The trick is sorting out the lies. Of course there is the rest
of the internet for that, happy hunting.
Cheers,
Mark
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
