Wikipedia...Credi ble?

[SlithVampir]

According to a recent story in NewScientist (a nerdy science magazine I subscribe to), Wikipedia is trying to make itself more credible.

They plan to do this by assigning different users "credibility ratings" based on how their edits hold up.

What this topic is about, really is two things.

A) What would it be like if Wikipedia were as credible as Brittanica?

B) Do you guys think that there can ever be free, credible information?

Guess Wikipedia was sick of being "good in theory", as my history teacher says.
\

[KeithHybrid]

Wikipedia has some credibility. Most people wail on it because anyone can edit it, like changing an article about the Civil Rights Movement so it only says "POPPYCOCK". However, normally when information is erroneous, it's corrected.

[Christopherr]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think some articles can only be edited with users who prove themselves to be credible in the subject (i.e. having a degree).

[Elfer]

So what we're doing is assigning people credibility ratings, but the ratings are assigned by people who have no credibility in the field anyway.

Wikipedia's social construct is fairly far away from an academic one, it's more like a public school system. People are assigned credibility and power based on an arbitrary pecking order, rather than competence.

[SlithVampir]

At 12/11/07 06:49 PM, Elfer wrote: So what we're doing is assigning people credibility ratings, but the ratings are assigned by people who have no credibility in the field anyway.

ATTENTION! EVERYONE! This thread is about my A and B in the first post, not about Wikipedia can make itself that credible. They can't.

Wikipedia's social construct is fairly far away from an academic one, it's more like a public school system. People are assigned credibility and power based on an arbitrary pecking order, rather than competence.

Not a bad comparison, really.

[stafffighter]

At 12/11/07 06:49 PM, Christopherr wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but I think some articles can only be edited with users who prove themselves to be credible in the subject (i.e. having a degree).

You're wrong. I looked up aids research on wiki just for this and it turned out to be semi protected. All wikis editing protection does is this.

Full protection disables editing for everyone except administrators. Fully protected images cannot be overwritten by new uploads.
Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old.
Move protection protects the page solely from moves. Fully protected pages are move-protected as well, by default.
Cascading protection fully protects any page transcluded onto the protected page.

[Christopherr]

At 12/11/07 06:58 PM, stafffighter wrote: You're wrong. I looked up aids research on wiki just for this and it turned out to be semi protected. All wikis editing protection does is this.

Thanks, then. I don't really care for wikipedia on any formal paper anyways. I prefer to find more credible sources.

However, wikipedia is very nice if you just want something for personal reasons.

[SizZlE666]

Wiki has a system to prevent this, but I think that if it's a controversial of often discussed issue, it isn't very credible.

[KeithHybrid]

Some articles, mainly those that have been violated to no end, are restricted so only some users can edit them, most of the articles can be freely edited.

[TheMason]

I like Wiki for linking to in forums such as this; but it should never be used as a source in a High School or College paper.

The main reason for this is that it can be changed frequently which makes source checking problematic. It is entirely possible for a professor to check your Wiki source only to find your quote/paraphrase has been deleted and then assume you may be making it up or it has been changed to say the opposite of your point (this is a danger if your topic is particularly controversial).

Also, never ever use Wiki in an attempt to trump a primary source.

[Al6200]

I agree with TheMason. Wikipedia shouldn't be cited because it changes, although a good citation does have a date so technically the professor can go back to that date in the history.

I've heard talk on Wikipedia of having "stable builds", sort of like textbook editions. When it reaches a certain quality level it becomes a stable build, and then there are incremental builds that editors make until it achieves a higher quality. That would make it easier to cite since you could just say "Edition 2.5", rather than the date and time.

So far though, I don't believe there are any plans to implement this function.

My personal opinion is that for background research or general reading, Wikipedia is more reliable than any mainstream publication but less reliable than scientific journals.

The advantage of Wikipedia is neutrality. Unlike a newspaper or *shudder* a magazine, errors within Wikipedia can be corrected, and multiple opinions contribute to a specific piece. Therefore, for controversial topics like abortion or the war in Iraq, wikipedia is one of the best sources because of is wide range of input.

Moreover, I've read Newsweek articles that are outright lies, or are written in a fallacious style. I have never seen a blatantly deceptive Wikipedia article.

[SadisticMonkey]

Information on wikipedia is only as credible as it's source.

[JerkClock]

At 12/11/07 06:41 PM, SlithVampir wrote: They plan to do this by assigning different users "credibility ratings" based on how their edits hold up.

That won't fix they're credibility. If they wanna be credible they need to stop deleting legit information while playing semantics about what's "neutral", "derogatory" or "unencyclopedic" and just allow the facts to flow. They also need to stop this kind of bullshit(ie. favoring sourced lies over unsourced facts).

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/11/07 08:21 PM, JerkClock wrote:.

That won't fix they're credibility. If they wanna be credible they need to stop deleting legit information while playing semantics about what's "neutral", "derogatory" or "unencyclopedic" and just allow the facts to flow.

The whole point of deleting "unneutral", "derogatory" or "unencyclopedic" information is becuase they are not factual.

[Christopherr]

Proof that wikipedia is NOT reliant for any formal or semi-formal purpose.

[stafffighter]

At 12/11/07 08:49 PM, Christopherr wrote: Proof that wikipedia is NOT reliant for any formal or semi-formal purpose.

Stop referring to that. You're going to kill him.

[Christopherr]

At 12/11/07 08:50 PM, stafffighter wrote: Stop referring to that. You're going to kill him.

Kill who? I wasn't talking about anybody dying. In fact, I never posted anything related to death.
Nothing.

[JerkClock]

At 12/11/07 08:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

The whole point of deleting "unneutral", "derogatory" or "unencyclopedic" information is becuase they are not factual.

With the exception of "unencyclopedic", yes that's true. But the point was that often material that is factual gets deleted because admins are playing semantics with those words.

[JerkClock]

Err, to clarify something, "derogatory" info can be factual too. Sometimes information is objectively negative.

[SmilezRoyale]

I look at the starwars articles for Wikipedia, and then compare it to Starwars.Com, as well as Wookieepedia, they seem to be on the money.

Wikipedia is like a game of field mine on easy mode, in a meadow. I'd say 8-9/10 times their information is credible, any other time you'll be completely detonated.

[SirStanley]

At 12/11/07 07:42 PM, TheMason wrote: I like Wiki for linking to in forums such as this; but it should never be used as a source in a High School or College paper.

Probably not, although I used it on a graduate research paper once, and my professor didn't give a shit.

At 12/11/07 08:49 PM, Christopherr wrote: Proof that wikipedia is NOT reliant for any formal or semi-formal purpose.

All references like that have a few errors. According to this study, Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittannica.

[SirStanley]

At 12/11/07 09:04 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Wikipedia is like a game of field mine on easy mode, in a meadow. I'd say 8-9/10 times their information is credible, any other time you'll be completely detonated.

I view it as a decent source for facts, but as a poor source for unbiased analysis. Some entries have been shown to be copied word-for-word from liberal blogs and such. In fact, many of their articles are just copied 100% from other sites that are often biased.

[TheMason]

At 12/11/07 10:49 PM, SirStanley wrote:

At 12/11/07 07:42 PM, TheMason wrote: I like Wiki for linking to in forums such as this; but it should never be used as a source in a High School or College paper.

Probably not, although I used it on a graduate research paper once, and my professor didn't give a shit.

Guilty admission time; I've cited it on qualitative graduate papers befores myself. However, that was a few years ago and the questions regarding Wikipedia have only increased exponentially where now my school won't accept it on Undergrad papers and many high schools in my state are following suit.

[fahrenheit]

No, since wikipedia's whole job is to allow anyone to change and edit pages it will never be credible.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't use it, because most pages cite their sources and those are credible.

[SlithVampir]

All references like that have a few errors. According to this study, Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittannica.

Shit, someone actually responded to the original point of my thread.

[Earfetish]

At 12/11/07 08:49 PM, Christopherr wrote: Proof that wikipedia is NOT reliant for any formal or semi-formal purpose.

see that's exactly what it is good for

If I look for 'implicature' or 'Gricean Maxims' or any other linguistic jargon suitable for my course in wikipedia, it's very likely I'm going to get understandable, accurate information. If I was studying sociology or politics, it would be prone to more bias, but as a scientific encyclopaedia it doesn't seem particularly flawed.

[SadisticMonkey]

Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source of information, but it's lack of creditable information is greatly exaggerated.

[JerkClock]

All references like that have a few errors. According to this study, Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittannica.

1 person writing a biased, pro-wiki column, no I gotta say it's bullshit.

Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source of information, but it's lack of creditable information is greatly exaggerated.

Right, Brian Pepper's article being deleted, that's exaggerated, David Tholen's usenet info being deleted, that's exaggerated, trivia info being deleted, that's exagerated.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/12/07 07:16 PM, JerkClock wrote:

Stuff

What I mean is that people make out that you can't trust anything you find on wikipedia, which is stupid, because those same people would accept sources used by wikipedia in many cases without hesitation.

[JerkClock]

At 12/12/07 07:34 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

What I mean is that people make out that you can't trust anything you find on wikipedia,

I don't think anyone's saying it's 0% accurate, just that it's innaccurate enough to be considered unreliable and as such, not a valid source.