This paragraph gives us some insight into the dangers inherent in our sound-bite, bumper-sticker society, in which many people gain a small fragment of knowledge and from this fragment are deluded into thinking that they comprehend very complex ideas.
I am not much of a user of Wikipedia and thus have little knowledge upon which I can answer my own question.
Yeah, of course you shouldn’t rely on it as a soul source, or as a source for a paper at all, but it’s great for quick information and general overviews on topics.
Sound bites in Wikipedia are no worse than sound bites in posts in philosophy threads. The good thing about both is they are up for improvement via good reactions to them. If any sound bite causes reaction, it has done its job of communicating an idea.
It depends upon the reaction. If the reader goes to the books or Google to expand, then it is a good reaction. If the reader decides s/he now comprehends the meaning of the word or phrase then the reaction is unfortunate. Too often it seems to be the later reaction.
People like imp, who don’t like wikipedia, are just lazy. If there is a less than neutral article you can edit it and make it neutral. To disagree with the whole system is just a cop-out.
That is a good question. I often try to convince myself that it is all worth while but most replies are very negative. It appears to me that young people consider to be negative is to be cool and thus they constantly reply not X if my post says that X is true. I generally hope that those who respond are not a good sample of the views of those who read the post.
We’ve been over this before eh, I would find the thread but I’m lazy.
Wikipedia is a lot better than most people give it credit for. If you actually do some research, which I’m sure Imp hasn’t, you’ll see that you’ll be tough to find a more neutral, all around Encyclopedia that even comes close. You have to remember, other encyclopedias can be every more biased because they are written by a small group of people without any real public input.
Imp is just pissed that someone added all the retarded shit Bush and his family has done over the years.
Sure Wiki may lead to people thinking they understand philosophy or whatever because they’ve read a couple articles, but if that is our complaint… that people are only reading encyclopedia articles – I think we’re doing alright.
If anyone wants to actually debate whether there are superior encyclopedias out there I’d be interested to hear your specific reasons.
I’ve looked up topics about history of certain countries and found it to be a good source. Also subjects that deal in pop culture are usually well done. For instance, I wanted to know about the game Halo, so I looked it up there. The entry was like someone’s thesis.
My point is, I believe people that’re passionate about a topic desire out of goodness to write the best article on the topic as is possible. However, if one wants to they could write something that has subtle spin that’s really propaganda. I’ve seen this kind of entry about various businesses, as it was clear that they were written by someone from the business.
This is a response I received that you might find interesting.
I’m a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It’s not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author’s credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn’t qualify as an authoritative source. It’s also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.
I had one prof that said he didn’t even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It’s not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.
I think in some cases people look at collecting information and want to call it knowledge. This is the trick their ego plays on them. Its like collecting hundreds of pieces of antique furniture only to realize you have a room full of old furniture.
You can read about enlightenment, but until you sit down and start focusing your mind you’ll never unsterstand it.
Good reaction. Isn’t it possible, both here and there that improvement is welcomed?