Wiki: ja oder nein
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's okay as long as you remember it's not perfect. Anyone can write an article in wiki. Some of them are really good, some are less. But it always can come in handy.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I think mine was possibly the post you mean
You need to bear in mind that wasn't my definition of Wikipedia, it was Wikipedia's definition of itself so my 'credibility' doesn't really come into it.
There's nothing dramatically wrong with Wiki, as an information reference tool it's OK without being excellent. Its pro's are that it is hugely wide-ranging, giving any user access to just about any information.
Its cons are that there is an equally wide-ranging level of quality in the accuracy and/or representation of the data, from the excellent and irrefutable to the downright iffy; anyone like you or I can contribute to Wikipedia and you can submit anything of any quality without that material ever having to face a peer review. It can be corrected, again by anyone like you or I and again without any formal approval process.
I'm quite happy to use Wiki from time to time but I would never use it as a stand-alone reference; I would cross-reference with other sources and build a picture that way.
That's my take on Wikipedia, was it credible enough?
seesul
Senior Master Sergeant
it´s not a bible.you gotta always compare more sources.
Erich
the old Sage
or they have taken the sources and used their own typical language to interpret. wiki it all depends on what it covers. granted what you guys are stating is that more research is needed do not accept all of it as written truth, find out for yourself. If anything this huge design opens your mind to the possibilities at hand
Hi Tomopauk,
>Is the Wiki okay or it is not?
First, "Wiki" is the name of the technology, like "forum" is the name of the technology we're using here.
However, I am sure you're asking for opinions on the Wikipedia. To that, my answer is: It's worse than useless.
I was a great Wikipedia fan for quite a while, and a serious contributor to the German version (as well as an occasional contributor to the English one).
There are many things irrepairably wrong with the Wikipedia, and I won't bore you with the full list. Don't believe the Wikipedia's claims about what the Wikipedia is, how it works and what its rules are ... they are not binding, not popular with the Wikipedians, often habitually disrespected, and there is no way to appeal to any kind of authority to ensure observation of these rules.
If you look at the English or German Wikipedia, there are thousands of contributors, but millions of articles. Within individual topics, there are often just a handful of contributors, and who has the most say in the articles is not determined by level of expertise, but by assiduity and effort spent on editing articles. In fact, the thin spread of contributors over the articles leads to territorial behaviour, with people "bandogging" articles, struggling against any change that doesn't appeal their agenda, and actively discouraging interference with their article more by acid comments and general meanness than with good arguments. And when no-one acts territorial about an article, the results are not pretty either - in that case anyone can add stuff freely, and only what can be clearly disproved has a chance of being deleted. If you dream up stuff that cannot be disproved, it might stay forever in an article, especially if you put some effort into marking your territory and discouraging others too.
As pointed out above, expertise has only very little value in the Wikipedia ... at best, someone asks for a source for you claim, but as almost every stupid thought men ever had has been put into print somewhere, there is no shortage of properly referenced nonsense in the Wikipedia. I have actually followed some suspicious claims occasionally, found that the reference did not state what was claimed in the Wikipedia, and pointed that out - with poor results as typically the territorial mob would not allow the article to be changed. And as everyone who's not part of the territorial mob stays clear of them because they know how to make your life on Wikipedia unpleasant, there is no solidarity among the "non-territorial" contributors as no-one is willing to step into the line of fire ... better to occupy one's own territory somewhere else. You hardly ever see someone change his mind in an ordinary forum discussion ... now imagine a forum in which only one opinion is allowed in every thread, and you have a pretty clear picture of the Wikipedia. (Of course, there are rules dealing with competing opinons ... however, naturally the other's opinion is always invalid and unworthy of inclusion, and one's own is not an opinion but the state of the science.)
And then there is the question who wrote what ... on an ordinary forum, each contribution is clearly labeled with a name, and if you have been a member for a while, you already know to expect from the individual contributors. In a Wikipedia article, you can look at each individual change, but it's still close to impossible to find out who wrote what because not only you'd have to view dozens or hundreds of versions of an article, but also because someone who put something into an article might not have originated it, but simply lifted it from an older version of the article and re-inserted it because he disagreed with someone who previously disagreed with that statement, which had been in an older version of the article. (This also leads to people being very cautious about deleting something from an article ... this might start a territorial conflict with someone bandogging the article if it was his statement, and you never know ...)
With regard to the quality of the research ... well, here is something I observed while it happened, and which is entirely impossible to recognize today: I wrote something on an aircraft topic for the German Wikipedia. This was then translated for the English Wikipedia. Surfing the net, I found an article on the same topic on a popular and well-regarded site that I fully agreed with - especially the parts that quite obviously were paraphrased from the English article that was a translation of the German article I originally wrote. All fair use so far. Not much later, the rest of the article on that external site was paraphrased for the English Wikipedia - and quoted as source for the entire article. I guess it's only a question of time before the same article will be listed as the source for the German article as well ... completely reversing the source/result chain and terminally confusing the origin of the information. With a Wikipedia article, you never know who might have dreamt up the content, and don't for a second believe that the much-vaunted "Neutral Point Of View" principle is more than an unrealistic ideal instrumentalized as a weapon against everyone else's personal opinion.
The reason that I consider the Wikipedia "worth than useless" is that there is no guarantee that the content is inaccurate and biased, and any randomly selected article might be good or bad ... and unless you already know the facts on the topic you're reading about, you have no way to tell which it is.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Is the Wiki okay or it is not?
First, "Wiki" is the name of the technology, like "forum" is the name of the technology we're using here.
However, I am sure you're asking for opinions on the Wikipedia. To that, my answer is: It's worse than useless.
I was a great Wikipedia fan for quite a while, and a serious contributor to the German version (as well as an occasional contributor to the English one).
There are many things irrepairably wrong with the Wikipedia, and I won't bore you with the full list. Don't believe the Wikipedia's claims about what the Wikipedia is, how it works and what its rules are ... they are not binding, not popular with the Wikipedians, often habitually disrespected, and there is no way to appeal to any kind of authority to ensure observation of these rules.
If you look at the English or German Wikipedia, there are thousands of contributors, but millions of articles. Within individual topics, there are often just a handful of contributors, and who has the most say in the articles is not determined by level of expertise, but by assiduity and effort spent on editing articles. In fact, the thin spread of contributors over the articles leads to territorial behaviour, with people "bandogging" articles, struggling against any change that doesn't appeal their agenda, and actively discouraging interference with their article more by acid comments and general meanness than with good arguments. And when no-one acts territorial about an article, the results are not pretty either - in that case anyone can add stuff freely, and only what can be clearly disproved has a chance of being deleted. If you dream up stuff that cannot be disproved, it might stay forever in an article, especially if you put some effort into marking your territory and discouraging others too.
As pointed out above, expertise has only very little value in the Wikipedia ... at best, someone asks for a source for you claim, but as almost every stupid thought men ever had has been put into print somewhere, there is no shortage of properly referenced nonsense in the Wikipedia. I have actually followed some suspicious claims occasionally, found that the reference did not state what was claimed in the Wikipedia, and pointed that out - with poor results as typically the territorial mob would not allow the article to be changed. And as everyone who's not part of the territorial mob stays clear of them because they know how to make your life on Wikipedia unpleasant, there is no solidarity among the "non-territorial" contributors as no-one is willing to step into the line of fire ... better to occupy one's own territory somewhere else. You hardly ever see someone change his mind in an ordinary forum discussion ... now imagine a forum in which only one opinion is allowed in every thread, and you have a pretty clear picture of the Wikipedia. (Of course, there are rules dealing with competing opinons ... however, naturally the other's opinion is always invalid and unworthy of inclusion, and one's own is not an opinion but the state of the science.)
And then there is the question who wrote what ... on an ordinary forum, each contribution is clearly labeled with a name, and if you have been a member for a while, you already know to expect from the individual contributors. In a Wikipedia article, you can look at each individual change, but it's still close to impossible to find out who wrote what because not only you'd have to view dozens or hundreds of versions of an article, but also because someone who put something into an article might not have originated it, but simply lifted it from an older version of the article and re-inserted it because he disagreed with someone who previously disagreed with that statement, which had been in an older version of the article. (This also leads to people being very cautious about deleting something from an article ... this might start a territorial conflict with someone bandogging the article if it was his statement, and you never know ...)
With regard to the quality of the research ... well, here is something I observed while it happened, and which is entirely impossible to recognize today: I wrote something on an aircraft topic for the German Wikipedia. This was then translated for the English Wikipedia. Surfing the net, I found an article on the same topic on a popular and well-regarded site that I fully agreed with - especially the parts that quite obviously were paraphrased from the English article that was a translation of the German article I originally wrote. All fair use so far. Not much later, the rest of the article on that external site was paraphrased for the English Wikipedia - and quoted as source for the entire article. I guess it's only a question of time before the same article will be listed as the source for the German article as well ... completely reversing the source/result chain and terminally confusing the origin of the information. With a Wikipedia article, you never know who might have dreamt up the content, and don't for a second believe that the much-vaunted "Neutral Point Of View" principle is more than an unrealistic ideal instrumentalized as a weapon against everyone else's personal opinion.
The reason that I consider the Wikipedia "worth than useless" is that there is no guarantee that the content is inaccurate and biased, and any randomly selected article might be good or bad ... and unless you already know the facts on the topic you're reading about, you have no way to tell which it is.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Wiki is okay for a quick reference, but you have to ready to do more research to verify everything. It really is hit or miss.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
It's good enough for a starting point. If you want to know more, you go somewhere else...
A4K
Brigadier General
Me too. come across some big errors at times, that would put someone crook on the subject if unfamiliar with it...
- Thread starter
- #12
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If you go to Wiki and look up the YB-40, I deleted the story about Lt. Fisher and the Italian P-38 because it was BS.
You hit the nail on the head Henning...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
