Poor Wikipedia now taking hits from all sides
 

"Credibility gap"... ha ha... I love it.

Is wikipedia the end-all-BE-all answer source that some think it is?


http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Worl...81932-sun.html

Canada's Sun Media is now fucking with them.

Then there's things like this... I particularly like the final paragraph of the article
:1orglaugh

but the genius of Wiki is that the flow of info is transparent. You can see how info builds/is refuted/etc.

wikipedia is crap..it should be outlawed

think of all the naive people that bel9ieve everything on there

wikipedia is fine until it gets to areas not of fact but of judgement. That the major issues surround areas such as politics and religeon shouldn't surprise anyone. There is no such thing as definitive history on either subject.

Wiki is a great tool for straight issues. It is an easily corrupted tool when it comes to opinion.

Wikipedia had a lesser % of errors than britannica...

The naive people should be outlawed to think.

Right on the spot.

haha, credibility gap was another word for "lie" when used around watergate/nixon

the word wiki by it's very definition means that anyone can edit the content.

wiki:

A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it.

FYI... I got this definition from dictionary.com just to be on the safe side...lol

:winkwink:

i wish people from manitoba would find something better to do

R

Wiki's a great concept, and while I wouldn't use it as a reference in a paper I might be writing, or anything definitive, Wikipedia's usually the first thing I'll turn to if I want some quick information.

Now if they could set things up so that there was formal peer reviewing of all articles that were submitted _before_ they go live, that would probably be best in the end.

Interesting article. Do we assume that everything that we read is the truth though? I doubt that anyone with a brain ever takes information on the internet to be the absolute truth. If it is important to know the truth it's usually best to find a primary source for the information, even then it is important to verify the information from another source or two. Wikipedia to me serves only to give background information on something that I only have a passive interest in. Pretty funny that this article appeared in the Sun...considering it is a joke of a newspaper in the first place. They were probably just pissed off because their reporters were getting false information from the site :1orglaugh

They usually catch stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

Pope Paul VI (Flos florum)
Pope Paul VI, FUCK YOU who reigned from 1963-1978, is described in the prophecies as Flos florum (flower of flowers). His personal arms bore three fleurs-de-lis, the well-known symbol in flags and heraldry used to represent the French monarchy. "Fleur-de-lis" literally means "flower of louis" (as a reference to the Louis Kings of France). However, this disregards all the other papal arms that had flowers on them as well.

Actually, I think the study showed that they had a slightly higher % of errors, but the articles, on average, had over twice the content of traditional encyclopedias.

It really is an amazing resource, and all references are cited, so you can go find the source of the information yourself and decide if its accurate.

If it doesn't make $ it's a pile of junk

Is there a higher cause than the pursuit of truth and accuracy of information?

I think not.