Just say no to Wikipedia
- Thread starter Alice
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
VanC
Well-known member
I wasn't aware that anyone could modify Wikipedia. I will look at it differently from now on. Thanks for the heads up, Alice.
On a side note, it's just another warning that we need to take any information on the internet with a grain of salt. It's a fantastic thing to have all that information at our fingertips, but unfortunately much of it it false, biased, and harmful.
On a side note, it's just another warning that we need to take any information on the internet with a grain of salt. It's a fantastic thing to have all that information at our fingertips, but unfortunately much of it it false, biased, and harmful.
cattleluvr18
Well-known member
the teachers at school dont let us use it cuz it can be edited.
makes sense
makes sense
sanchez
Well-known member
It's obvious why they shouldn't be referencing it, but it is pretty extreme to outright blocking it. That's bogus in my book.
karlie45
Well-known member
We have it blocked at our school. But if someone goes home and uses it, and then sites it, they have to re-do the project.
grannysoo
Well-known member
You can pick up "some" good information at times there. You can also pick up wrong information, mis-information, opinions, and more. The only thing I've found it good for is giggles....
Miss Daisy
Well-known member
there are may other online encyclopedias to choose from... or, oh my, you could read a book!
VanC
Well-known member
Miss Daisy":b54gnniu said:
Get real! Next you'll be asking people to do math without a calculator. ;-)
Miss Daisy
Well-known member
Alice":3llk7uou said:VanC":3llk7uou said:
:shock: Yikes! Now, that would be bogus!
Alice
geez, if you watched your history lesson online you would know this!
never anything incorrect in a hard copy, published, source either is there? :roll:
Wiki is a fascinating phenomenon. I don't play around with it, but man it is sort of like democracy IN ACTION. Sure anybody can edit but thousands will correct (just as instantly) if you try anything silly for long.
As with anything (and the point of your OP) verify sources with more sources. The basics in science say repeat things at least three times before making any kind of assumption so you can extrapolate that to gathering general information too, I think.
As with anything (and the point of your OP) verify sources with more sources. The basics in science say repeat things at least three times before making any kind of assumption so you can extrapolate that to gathering general information too, I think.
VanC":2clw7e11 said:
I didn't either until my son told me that it was all user generated content and that students were not allowed to use it as sources in research papers.
I like the internet for informational purposes, but it is like every other thing. You can't always take it as gospel.
I've found that a good way to get an idea of Wikipedia's accuracy is to take a look at the wiki page dedicated to something you personally know really, really well..
I looked at the wiki page on "N-Series" Ford tractors one day and was just totally disappointed by all the errors and omissions.. It's been cleaned up a bit since then (not by me), but still isn't all that useful. For instance, it states that the biggest difference between the 9/2N and the 8N is that they went from a 3-spd to a 4-spd transmission, totally omitting the fact that the 8N also introduced "position control" to the three-point lift.. Before that, the lift was either all-up, or all-down -- wouldn't hold a spot in between.
Can you imagine if your tractor's lift was only all-up or all-down?? I can't.. That said, it seems to me that the introduction of position control -- to the world -- is probably more important than having gone from a 3-spd to a 4-spd...
Anyway, I think about that when I'm using wikipedia to learn about something something of which I have little or no knowledge.. In the back of my mind, I keep thinking that there's probably somebody out there who really knows a lot about what I'm looking up, who's probably just as aghast at the page I'm looking at as I was at the N-Series tractor page..
Really puts things in perspective..
I looked at the wiki page on "N-Series" Ford tractors one day and was just totally disappointed by all the errors and omissions.. It's been cleaned up a bit since then (not by me), but still isn't all that useful. For instance, it states that the biggest difference between the 9/2N and the 8N is that they went from a 3-spd to a 4-spd transmission, totally omitting the fact that the 8N also introduced "position control" to the three-point lift.. Before that, the lift was either all-up, or all-down -- wouldn't hold a spot in between.
Can you imagine if your tractor's lift was only all-up or all-down?? I can't.. That said, it seems to me that the introduction of position control -- to the world -- is probably more important than having gone from a 3-spd to a 4-spd...
Anyway, I think about that when I'm using wikipedia to learn about something something of which I have little or no knowledge.. In the back of my mind, I keep thinking that there's probably somebody out there who really knows a lot about what I'm looking up, who's probably just as aghast at the page I'm looking at as I was at the N-Series tractor page..
Really puts things in perspective..
It can be modified by others...
BUT! I have never run in with a problem on it with false misleading information.... yet... :shock:
I bet if you're looking up debateable, controversial subjects it might be a bit misguiding. However, I still use it as a vaulable source for information.
Anyways... if you are doing a research paper, etc., then you would never want to go off one website/book/article alone. My teacher once told me that for ever article you find saying _______ you need to find atleast 3 more that bring up the same facts.
I will still continue to use Wikipedia.
BUT! I have never run in with a problem on it with false misleading information.... yet... :shock:
I bet if you're looking up debateable, controversial subjects it might be a bit misguiding. However, I still use it as a vaulable source for information.
Anyways... if you are doing a research paper, etc., then you would never want to go off one website/book/article alone. My teacher once told me that for ever article you find saying _______ you need to find atleast 3 more that bring up the same facts.
I will still continue to use Wikipedia.
AngusSenorita
Well-known member
all the info I have ever received from Wiki has been accurate. If you want to modify it I think it has to be reviewed 1st. I never used it for school projects but it has never led me in the wrong direction.
cmjust0":20cgr52n said:
You should edit the entry and put this in!
MissouriExile
Well-known member
Alice":268833jv said:
Like most things in life there is no such thing as absolute black and white when looking at Wikipaedia.
Wikipaedia has articles on a huge range of subjects not covered elsewhere. As the administrators noted; It should not be treated as absolute truth. It also provides a place for normal people to write articles about things they are knowledgeable about. Some of the things written will conflict with what others think they know about the subject. (look at cattle today) From such things we learn and maybe grow.
Articles are constantly reviewed by research people and garbage rooted out.
The trash sometimes found should instruct our children in critical thinking. How many of us take T.V. commentators at face vaue? Critical thinking is becoming a lost skill.
It's just another tool to use in research. Blocking it is much like burning books on subjects we object to.
Jon
