Wikipedia and CC forum parallels

[Ace Rimmer]

Here's some fodder for General Discussion.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece

Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.

Discuss.

Jake

[Woodruff]

Here's some fodder for General Discussion.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece

Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.

Discuss.

Jake

I think the people that think that don't understand what they're really thinking.

Wikipedia sucks, however.

[demonfork]

Here's some fodder for General Discussion.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece

Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.

Discuss.

Jake

I think the people that think that don't understand what they're really thinking.

Wikipedia sucks, however.

Typical answer from a teacher, teachers are generally Wikipedia haters. Probably because they don't know how to relate to systems that aren't bogged down by bureaucracy.

Wikipedia is awesome, however.

[Foxglove]

Wikipedia sucks, however.

It might have flaws, but it is an easily accessible, adequately accurate, super amazing source of info.

I look things up on wikipedia practically every day.

[Woodruff]

Here's some fodder for General Discussion.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece

Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.

Discuss.

Jake

I think the people that think that don't understand what they're really thinking.

Wikipedia sucks, however.

Typical answer from a teacher, teachers are generally Wikipedia haters. Probably because they don't know how to relate to systems that aren't bogged down by bureaucracy.
Wikipedia is awesome, however.

Teachers are generally Wikipedia haters because they recognize it for what it is - unsubstantiated. Has nothing at all to do with bureaucracy and has everything to do with accuracy.

Wikipedia sucks, however.

It might have flaws, but it is an easily accessible, adequately accurate, super amazing source of info.

I look things up on wikipedia practically every day.

Which is great, if you're not concerned with the information being particularly accurate. In my view, that's a very serious flaw.

[demonfork]

Here's some fodder for General Discussion.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece

Wikipedia has seen a large number of editors (contributors) leave in the past year. Is this something that is to be expected from a site with community moderators, such as CC? I'm not saying that CC is dying but plenty of posters think that the forums are dying and becoming more bland/stale.

Discuss.

Jake

I think the people that think that don't understand what they're really thinking.

Wikipedia sucks, however.

Typical answer from a teacher, teachers are generally Wikipedia haters. Probably because they don't know how to relate to systems that aren't bogged down by bureaucracy.
Wikipedia is awesome, however.

Teachers are generally Wikipedia haters because they recognize it for what it is - unsubstantiated. Has nothing at all to do with bureaucracy and has everything to do with accuracy.

Wikipedia sucks, however.

It might have flaws, but it is an easily accessible, adequately accurate, super amazing source of info.

I look things up on wikipedia practically every day.

Which is great, if you're not concerned with the information being particularly accurate. In my view, that's a very serious flaw.

God, it's amazing to me that we are even able to make any kind of progress at all when we are plagued with so many one dimensional thinkers that aren't able to cope with change.


Technology is increasing geometrically. By the time "accurate" information is published in text books, packaged and shipped off to Mr college professor to use as his next semesters curriculum, that information, a lot of times, is already obsolete.


Real time information is the future, if you cant realize that and start embracing it then you will be left in the dust.

[Army of GOD]

Keyword: Free





I don't care if it tells me World War 2 was a boxing match between two Christian Penguins that wore hats. It's free!

[BigBallinStalin]

God, it's amazing to me that we are even able to make any kind of progress at all when we are plagued with so many one dimensional thinkers that aren't able to cope with change.


Technology is increasing geometrically. By the time "accurate" information is published in text books, packaged and shipped off to Mr college professor to use as his next semesters curriculum, that information, a lot of times, is already obsolete.


Real time information is the future, if you cant realize that and start embracing it then you will be left in the dust.

Yeah, get with the times Woodruff; stop being a line. Nowadays, it's right to be wrong. It's legitimate to quote and defend rubbish sources. You can yell all you want, but the Stupids will just yell louder.

And obviously, "accurate" text book information is OBSOLETE---ALL WRONG!!--which is why Wikipedia and news articles and articles from pop magazines are now the only acceptable form of fact.

[Woodruff]

Which is great, if you're not concerned with the information being particularly accurate. In my view, that's a very serious flaw.

God, it's amazing to me that we are even able to make any kind of progress at all when we are plagued with so many one dimensional thinkers that aren't able to cope with change.

Technology is increasing geometrically. By the time "accurate" information is published in text books, packaged and shipped off to Mr college professor to use as his next semesters curriculum, that information, a lot of times, is already obsolete.

Real time information is the future, if you cant realize that and start embracing it then you will be left in the dust.

So what you're telling me is that people should embrace Wikipedia even though it's not verified accurate information EVEN WHEN THERE IS VERIFIED ACCURATE INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE ONLINE? Really? There is BOATLOADS of legitimate research information available on the web on pretty much any subject.

I'm a computer programmer and network system administrator by trade - I love technology and I'm very much in support of it. What I'm not in favor of and don't support are laziness, intellectual dishonesty and the idea that easier is better. You obviously would disagree with that position.

[frankiebee]

Wikipedia rules !

If you need a quick shot of information on a certain subject, wikipedia is the place to be.

[frankiebee]

Which is great, if you're not concerned with the information being particularly accurate. In my view, that's a very serious flaw.

God, it's amazing to me that we are even able to make any kind of progress at all when we are plagued with so many one dimensional thinkers that aren't able to cope with change.

Technology is increasing geometrically. By the time "accurate" information is published in text books, packaged and shipped off to Mr college professor to use as his next semesters curriculum, that information, a lot of times, is already obsolete.

Real time information is the future, if you cant realize that and start embracing it then you will be left in the dust.

So what you're telling me is that people should embrace Wikipedia even though it's not verified accurate information EVEN WHEN THERE IS VERIFIED ACCURATE INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE ONLINE? Really? There is BOATLOADS of legitimate research information available on the web on pretty much any subject.

Not verified ?
Just an example of 1 Wikipedia page verifications:

show

[MartijnF]

Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.

The average Wikipedia article has been reviewed by more people than most other sources of information and is therefore more reliable.

Don't forget to include the disucssions and revision pages when reading an article though.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.

The average Wikipedia article has been reviewed by more people than most other sources of information and is therefore more reliable.

Don't forget to include the disucssions and revision pages when reading an article though.

Wikipedia: By idiots, for idiots. <----------Something like that, huh?


I'll use wikipedia for things that aren't too important, like getting the names of certain people in other languages. That's always been correct for me... Let's see... movies! Movies aren't too bad, as long as you read the first paragraph on what it's about.

I like to think of Wikipedia as asking some random guy what this is, and taking in their response: "Ah, OK, gotcha, thanks," and then that's it. The words of some stranger, some random guy on the street, are just enough to fill me in on whatever topic, but wikipedia is certainly not enough if you want to argue about anything and think you have some serious weight behind your facts.

[Snorri1234]

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

[jammyjames]

guys, next time all you nerds are sat round with friends... try the wikipedia game...


here is how it works:

one person states a word, can be practically anything and then everyone sets off to find this word..

catch is.... keyboard use is not allowed, the page has to be found looking through other pages...

it will keep you amused for a fair while and the amazing thing is you can actually find what you want..

Try it.... or be killed by mcgill university

[MeDeFe]

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

No, you're not.

[Woodruff]

Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.

This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

[demonfork]

Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.

This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

It actually scares that shit out of me that you are a teacher.

[Jace22]

Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.

And therein lies the problem with wikipedia. If you have an account on wiki, then you can change any information you want. I only use wiki for recreational use(ie looking up half-assed video game/movie plots) and to get me started on any school projects I get. I don't actually use wikipedia for info, but rather its sources.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.

This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

Cause it would take you longer to find them and to realize what each one is discussing and which is worth reading.

As i see it, when you encounter something new, that perhaps you want to learn more about, you wiki it, read a bit between the lines, see what the subject is about. If you discover that you don't actually want to know all that much about this subject, you exit, if you still want to learn, you look closer at the sections, and then the references.

Much better than googling for the subject and getting a mix of introductory to expert level material on it with no way to tell which is which (without actually checking all of them out).

Wiki is good as a starting point, you can't learn anything that's slightly complex from there (at least i can't), but you can figure out how to learn it.

[MartijnF]

This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.

There is no problem. Wikipedia is exactly what people make of it. That is what is awesome about it and why it's useful at the same time.

[Snorri1234]

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.


If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.

[Woodruff]

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.


If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.

Now THAT I can deal with...I misunderstood what you were saying. In other words, you're saying that you're not using the TEXT of Wikipedia, but rather just the places it's referring to, which are legitimate reference points. I have no problem with the use of Wikipedia to that point, and I already encourage my students to do so. But Wikipedia should NOT be used as a reference point itself.

Wikipedia articles are always accurate, because when you encounter something which is not correct, you can fix it.

This sort of logic frightens and confuses me. Mostly frightens me though, because it just highlights the problem without recognizing it.

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

It actually scares that shit out of me that you are a teacher.

Yes, isn't it awful that a teacher requires actual work in their projects, rather than allowing students to use sources that are not legitimate? Just terrible.

[AndyDufresne]

Since this seems to evolved mostly to a discussion about Wikipedia, I've moved it on over!


--Andy

[Neoteny]

Am I the only one who actually checks the references on a wikipedia article and uses them?

And that's fine, but if you're going to bother with that...why not just use the references themselves? Why bother with Wikipedia?

Because all those references are conveniently located next to eachother in wiki. It's much harder to find with google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a starting-point, it will give you just enough info to see what it's all about and leave you with good references to look into for more detail.


If I know little about a topic which is not surrounded by controversy wikipedia is the best place to look.

This. Wikipedia is awesome as a quick and easy reference finder that gives you directionality for your info search that other systems don't have. I usually just skim the article and follow-through on anything that catches my eye. Wikipedia is a valuable tool in this respect.