Big Remy and the World versus the Wikipedia of Misinformation: Round 3
And the winner is….
Big Remy and the World! Middlebury College History Department bans the use of the Wikipedia as a citable source of information. Thank god, now at least one more generation of history students will be safe.
Let the usual comments fly.
Considering the amount of misinformation spouted by any media outlet (Fox, CNN, CBS, etc.), the revisionist textbooks in Texas, the errors and inconsistencies presented in scientific journals and encyclopedias going back to the very beginning of the written word, you’ll pardon me if I don’t share the opinion that Wikipedia’s doom is quite at hand.
Also, this makes absolutely no indication on any specific problem with Wikipedia. In fact, it endorses the use of Wikipedia as a source, just not a definitive or singular one. Since authors on Wikipedia often cite external sources, and the students could always look back to those as sources, this doesn’t mean much of anything at all. Any good research paper cites multiple sources anyway.
This seems to be the exact arguments I have personally made all along about Wikipedia, and I think most reasonable people would make. I would accept no single source for a paper if I were a teacher, simple because this sort of irresponsible research begets other, worse research. And then you end up with Creationists. Or anti-vaccination liars.
So, less a generation of students being safe from the ravages of online encyclopedias and more of a set of guidelines on responsible research.
Bah. The Wiki will one day cause the decline of modern civilization as we know if it is not stopped.
And yes, I am being an asshole towards the Wiki. Absolutely admit it this time. I think the Wiki was a great idea that was poorly executed.
I gotta say, I agree that wikipedia ha no place in ’scholarly’ research. It’s not peer-reviewed (in the usual sense of the phrase) and its accuracy and reliability changes from day to day and subject to subject.
However, I do think that wikipedia can be a great launching tool for study. The problem, IMHO, is that kids just stop there and take it as ‘gospel’. When I use wikipedia, I use it as a starting point and then dig deeper.
So, in a way, I agree with both sides. But in this case I’m more on Remy’s side of this argument; wikipedia has no place in school or college as ‘cited’ information. In my mind that’s akin to citing the card catalog at a library. This card catalog just has more detailed cards.
Maggie is my new best friend.
OK, but no yeti slobber, k?
And I have to note that this is somewhat the same as what Carl said. Just to be fair. But my basic belief is that I don’t believe that wikipedia is ready to be a ’source’ and can only be a [uncited] resource if we’re to maintain any sort of propriety in research/teaching. One day it may become something more worthy, but that day isn’t here yet (but I do use the damned thing every day, I gotta say).
How come when she makes the argument you agree? When I make the same argument, your response usually involves fist pumping and 4-letter words.
To me the value of Wikipedia is mainly in the ease with which you can find anything. And I DO mean just about ANYTHING.
Black holes, beer, the history of Colecovision (did you know it was originally a leather goods company?), a roster of every female porn star by decade (not that I, uh… had any reason to uh… research…) and the biography of Jack B. Thompson, professional loser.
So we’re all in agreement. Yeti’s a jackass, Maggie’s all right, and Wikipedia lives to fight another day.
You never make that arguement with the same clarity.
And I can think of several things off the top of my head that you can’t find in the wiki. You can find things related to them, but not the actual topic. So no, you actually can’t find ANYTHING.
I think, Mr. Yeti, you are missing Carl’s crappily made point.
The Wikipedia isn’t meant to be a be all, end all reference for all topics. It cannot, nor can any one resource cover all topics exhaustively. What it is, though, is a good source of information on a wide variety of topics, the likes of which is not replciated anywhere.
Point me to a single source that does what the Wikipedia does, but does it better.
Maybe he’s talking about the fuck-me-booted waitresses at Jillian’s that seem to put you boys into testosterone-clouded apoplexy. ;P
Personally, I just think that Wikipedia is to Remy what Sony is to Carl. hehe
Which begs the question, who/what is Colin’s arch-nemesis? And Karl?
Colin’s is Carnival Workers
Karl’s nemesis is anything that requires even a minute bit of dexterity or agility. He is a total klutz.
For me, I guess my arch-nemesis would be Carl.
As for the something doing it better, at least for Neuroscience, Scholarpedia does it much, much better.
And a lug wrench is better at aiding me in removing the tire from my car. Nice try.
Unless you’re after info on the McCulloch-Pitts Neuron. Then it’s just another wanki… errr.. I mean wiki. ;P
Sorry, couldn’t resist. hehe But, no, as this implies, I agree that peer review is going to be absolutely critical one day for Wikipedia if it is to survive. If it can’t integrate some sort of accountability eventually, it will be sucked into something that can.
My arch-nemesis is religion.
You have such limited vision
I am the sum of my inputs.
(Full Disclosure: I will smack the taste out of the mouth of whoever tries to make that remark sexual.
)
Well, the boots are sexy. And the drool-inducing hotness of a girl who can wear the boots and pull them off makes any ridicule about the ease with which we can be manipulated totally worth it.
Personally, I think it would be even better if they wore plaid miniskirts and little white shirts… and maybe ties, with the boots…. But alas, Jillian’s has to be all ‘respectable’.
I guess that depends on the throughput on your inputs, and how many of them you use at once.
There. Not only have I made that remark vaguely sexual, I have introduced a layer of computer geekiness.
(Full Disclosure: Maybe I enjoy being smacked. Or maybe I just enjoy antagonizing. See Colin;s comments about me.
)
I need to listen to the latest podcast first, then I’ll be back to do some smacking….
http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia/
IMHO, the guy is right: stop whining/obsessing about Wikipedia and go do something else. (somehow I think Remy and I read this article differently) And he’s right about the WCCAs, IMHO (although, in the interest of full disclosure, I do still vote the WCCAs).
As for some of the replies and the true ‘haters’. You know… the whole argument is specious at best.
Wikipedia is not ‘bad’. We can’t make a moral judgement over something so intangible as “some place on the web where people write things”. Justify Bostongeek by that token. You can’t. Don’t like it? Do something better. Or shut up. If some Congressman was calling for such measures, we’d all be up in arms defending Wikpedia….
Wikipedia isn’t the problem The problem, especially in the eyes of the true haters, is how it’s used by others and how much credence other people lend it. Fair enough, for the most part. But Wikipedia itself really has no control over that. Squabbling over how it’s moderated is just the same lame bullshit arguments that end up in most online forums or IRC channels — and back to 1985 when the floodgates opened to every 14 year old with a modem and a hormone problem. Childish. Crusading to delete Wikipedia is just… puerile. There’s no point in it. You might as well be saying “delete gmail” or “delete fark”.
If Wikipedia is worthless, it’s certainly not the most worthless thing on the net.
But no one is screaming ‘delete the hamster dance!”
Wikipedia just “is”. The Net allows for anything to exist. And it allows you to go 4.2 billion other places if you don’t like one.
Maggie is no longer my friend as she just completely took all the fun out of the ongoing Wikipedia fight.
Oh, thank god!
I knew I could never truly fit in without a nemesis/rivalry.
Thanks, Remy. You’re great.
Oh crap! Now I just made up and killed the rivalry.
Dammit!
HA HA!!!