Next Question
RSS
In school, we aren't allowed to use Wikipedia. Most of us students really like this site, whatever topic we have to write or talk about - mostly it's the first site that comes up once you've googled your topic, so we don't have to worry and just take it. Because Wikipedia offers literally every topic you want to know about more, it's like the most common source to look things up. But that might be because people usually don't question the correctness of their source, they're just happy to get a big amount of information to use for their talks or texts or whatever. I strongly believe that people would like to trust in Wikipedia without any doubt, so they don't have to give searching topics such a big effort.
But in school, giving Wikipedia as your source is equal to stating "I lost my brains along the way" - students didn't pay so much attention to their task or were to lazy to search for a reliable source. Teachers tend to give you a bad mark when you're brave enough to admit that you've only looked things up at Wikipedia and that you trust that site and its information. So no, even though it makes search so very easy, I don't think it's 100% reliable.
I also don't think that our effort could make such a source better or more reliable. Writers on Wikipedia may have the same intention, but the result stays imperfect. The problem is, that people aren't perfect, they make mistakes (even if they're trying hard and aren't aware of it) - so the source wouldn't be professional, either. Another problem is that there have to be people looking up what someone writes, edits or addes. It costs so much time and money, but the results wouldn't be so much better than the ones we already find by asking Wikipedea. So no, I don't think it can be made any better, just because we want to make it better. But if someone has another idea or view, I'm thrilled to get to know it - maybe there's a better way indeed.
Permalink | Report
It always depends on who is doing the writing. Wikipedia is as reliable as any encyclopedia. because any work that large will always have some errata. That is why encyclopedias have to publish errata sheets. Wikipedia accuracy is based on the sheer number of people who refer to it. When something is inaccurate or someone tries to insert misinformation it is usually caught and that is why we hear about it. Do you think the same is true for misinformation in an encyclopedia?
Permalink | Report
The creator of Wikipedia has said many of its entries are "a horrific embarrassment."
My theory is that many of the articles are written by college kids that happen to be learning about a certain subject and modify an article with the perspective their professor has given them without wholly understanding the subject. This leads to simple mistakes that leave one questioning the validity of the entire article.
However, from the research I've done, Wikipedia is fairly accurate, and suffers more from omissions of central, important themes and data than mistakes. If the articles do have citations, many are blogs or websites that don't even exist.
I have often found articles that are just horribly written with no citations, and none of it seems to have been flagged or double-checked. But I have also learned much from the better written articles on history, science, and art.
I don't think there is any way that Mahalo could be referenced, seeing as I have rarely seen a Mahalo answer that is properly cited (considering this would be an overbearing requirement and a disincentive for people to use it).
This is not to say the answers are not useful; I find that many Mahalo users are professionals or retirees that gladly give their time and expertise to the community. I'm just saying it won't hold up for any formal research.
Permalink | Report
That said, the trick is knowing when you're in the bad part of town. Not all of Wikipedia gets the same attention, and there is no obvious way for casual users to tell if they've wandered off into the more ill-founded areas. If you have the time, go to some of the referenced sources, and double check using other sources.
The more general question was Wikis in general. Other wikis have different levels of editing and user-generation. Wikipedia is probably the only case where the shear number of writers and editing tends to drive it towards accuracy. For other wikis, you have to consider who created it, who is allowed to edit it, and what standards are used to validate and correct information.
Permalink | Report
Our of these print titme which are not a collaborative writing effrot?
-School text books
-Encyclopedias
- texts such as the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and etc
-Government Laws
The point is that the same rules and guidelines that we use to determine whether printed collaborative works are accurate also applies to new internet collaborative writing such as wikipedia, mahalo,and etc.
usually, when I read such collaborative written items as wikipedia and etc I check sources mentioned and unmentioned, authors, and etc before I rely on the information, perspectives, and analysis being presented in the collaborative work.
The only major difference that you have to be prepared for is the edits/version of internet collaborative works change a lot faster than printed collaborative works. If you are unsure of a point you cannot verify wait and the public will at some point debate that point and reach a more accurate detail of that point.
As a side point the reason why I like both Mahalo, wikipedia and Google Knol is that each has set up a governance approach that seems to work with their collaborators in producing accurate information that can be relied upon.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$2
April 18, 2009 06:05 AM
Multi part question. Wiki sites are member written. How much do you trust them? Since we refute and debate do we have chance to equal them?
Wikipedia (and it's offspring) is not always confirmed information. I can write an article or alter someone elses. It usually lets us know when & where the sources they use are from or no sources are available, but we don't always check or can't check their references.
I view it with a little bit of suspicion for that reason, yet many people use it as if it is the same as Encyclopedia Britanica or other tried and tested resource material.
In time with effort by our members do you feel we can equal their "quotable factor"?
I view it with a little bit of suspicion for that reason, yet many people use it as if it is the same as Encyclopedia Britanica or other tried and tested resource material.
In time with effort by our members do you feel we can equal their "quotable factor"?
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| April 18, 2009 06:46 AM |
But in school, giving Wikipedia as your source is equal to stating "I lost my brains along the way" - students didn't pay so much attention to their task or were to lazy to search for a reliable source. Teachers tend to give you a bad mark when you're brave enough to admit that you've only looked things up at Wikipedia and that you trust that site and its information. So no, even though it makes search so very easy, I don't think it's 100% reliable.
I also don't think that our effort could make such a source better or more reliable. Writers on Wikipedia may have the same intention, but the result stays imperfect. The problem is, that people aren't perfect, they make mistakes (even if they're trying hard and aren't aware of it) - so the source wouldn't be professional, either. Another problem is that there have to be people looking up what someone writes, edits or addes. It costs so much time and money, but the results wouldn't be so much better than the ones we already find by asking Wikipedea. So no, I don't think it can be made any better, just because we want to make it better. But if someone has another idea or view, I'm thrilled to get to know it - maybe there's a better way indeed.
| Asker's Rating: |
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (4)
April 18, 2009 09:40 AM
An encyclopedia written in 1812 describes George Washington as the leader of a gang of thugs who overthrew the rightful government of the colonies in spite of the protests by the majority of the citizens. It always depends on who is doing the writing. Wikipedia is as reliable as any encyclopedia. because any work that large will always have some errata. That is why encyclopedias have to publish errata sheets. Wikipedia accuracy is based on the sheer number of people who refer to it. When something is inaccurate or someone tries to insert misinformation it is usually caught and that is why we hear about it. Do you think the same is true for misinformation in an encyclopedia?
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 18, 2009 10:37 AM
Good answer, great example. Considering the topic, I'd say you should give the source ;)... just kidding. No seriously, I really think that was a good answer. Still I would say that encyclopedias are more reliable and they have a far better reputation. I agree upon Wikipedia being not that inaccurate - and if you want to edit an article, there's always someone who checks if your effort is good or rubbish. I really like that. What I think is the best about Wikipedia IS the fact that so mane people can offer new information: It is always updated and usually it's not like you taking some information from Wikipedia and someone else saying "That's not right at all!", usually the information ARE alright. It's just that mistakes is what we hear about most. Plus, Wikipedia offers information about far more topics than a encyclopedia usually can. The sources are also given, so I wouldn't say it's a bad source at all, it just not 100% correct and usually has a bad reputation.
Report
April 21, 2009 01:57 PM
Oh how funny! That sort of is the point I am trying to get across...once something is put out as fact and passed along....how do you determine it's accuracy unless it's backed with provable fact.
Report
April 21, 2009 02:11 PM
I'd like to give everyone "Best Answer" for this. Please accept my tip of $1 in appreciation!
Report
April 18, 2009 12:53 PM
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for research in any meaningful circle of knowledge. The creator of Wikipedia has said many of its entries are "a horrific embarrassment."
My theory is that many of the articles are written by college kids that happen to be learning about a certain subject and modify an article with the perspective their professor has given them without wholly understanding the subject. This leads to simple mistakes that leave one questioning the validity of the entire article.
However, from the research I've done, Wikipedia is fairly accurate, and suffers more from omissions of central, important themes and data than mistakes. If the articles do have citations, many are blogs or websites that don't even exist.
I have often found articles that are just horribly written with no citations, and none of it seems to have been flagged or double-checked. But I have also learned much from the better written articles on history, science, and art.
I don't think there is any way that Mahalo could be referenced, seeing as I have rarely seen a Mahalo answer that is properly cited (considering this would be an overbearing requirement and a disincentive for people to use it).
This is not to say the answers are not useful; I find that many Mahalo users are professionals or retirees that gladly give their time and expertise to the community. I'm just saying it won't hold up for any formal research.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 19, 2009 09:37 PM
I have used Wikipedia myself too and found sites that led to someone's blog (I was something about Clinton, but can't remember exactly what I wanted to find....may have just been surfing) and that was when I became suspicious.
Actually, we are more easily reference than we know unless we look up something on Google.......I found this site on a very obscure issue about my old hometown.
I neither agree or disagree...we have all seen monster sites of the 90's all but dissappear and little search engines grow.
When it comes to the internet....clearly we see changes none of us foresaw!
Report
Actually, we are more easily reference than we know unless we look up something on Google.......I found this site on a very obscure issue about my old hometown.
I neither agree or disagree...we have all seen monster sites of the 90's all but dissappear and little search engines grow.
When it comes to the internet....clearly we see changes none of us foresaw!
April 21, 2009 02:06 PM
Actually...I see great potential with Mahalo IF we continue on the path we're on now. We have some great minds and a helpful staff....the indexing issue could present a problem...but I just tried a test with google....I searched odd wording for questions I've been involved with....EVERY one of them actually came up on the first page of google results.
I really think we'll see an increase of popularity with time and effort on our parts as well.
Report
I really think we'll see an increase of popularity with time and effort on our parts as well.
April 21, 2009 02:09 PM
I'd like to give everyone "Best Answer" for this. Please accept my tip of $1 in appreciation!
Report
April 18, 2009 03:12 PM
If I were doing original research for publication, I would not rely on Wikipedia. However, I've interacted with it enough to know that there is a huge pile of pretty well-researched and accurate information therein. Wikipedia is user-generated and user-edited, but it is also watched over by a small army of OCD specialists who track every change to their precious articles. In this sense, it may be more heavily reviewed than almost any other form of publication. That said, the trick is knowing when you're in the bad part of town. Not all of Wikipedia gets the same attention, and there is no obvious way for casual users to tell if they've wandered off into the more ill-founded areas. If you have the time, go to some of the referenced sources, and double check using other sources.
The more general question was Wikis in general. Other wikis have different levels of editing and user-generation. Wikipedia is probably the only case where the shear number of writers and editing tends to drive it towards accuracy. For other wikis, you have to consider who created it, who is allowed to edit it, and what standards are used to validate and correct information.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 19, 2009 09:42 PM
Oh I do think it can be useful.....even in the bad parts of town (LOVE that phrase for a web site) you can find a jewel.
I think my real concern with Wikipedia is that America's youth seem to be treating it as if it were the only source material. Even when told not to use it for class work....they start they and just don't use it as a source material.
Report
I think my real concern with Wikipedia is that America's youth seem to be treating it as if it were the only source material. Even when told not to use it for class work....they start they and just don't use it as a source material.
April 21, 2009 02:11 PM
I'd like to give everyone "Best Answer" for this. Please accept my tip of $1 in appreciation!
Report
April 18, 2009 06:08 PM
The problem is we tend to equate items wikipedia, mahalo, and etc as being something brand new just because they use new collaboration technology. Our of these print titme which are not a collaborative writing effrot?
-School text books
-Encyclopedias
- texts such as the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and etc
-Government Laws
The point is that the same rules and guidelines that we use to determine whether printed collaborative works are accurate also applies to new internet collaborative writing such as wikipedia, mahalo,and etc.
usually, when I read such collaborative written items as wikipedia and etc I check sources mentioned and unmentioned, authors, and etc before I rely on the information, perspectives, and analysis being presented in the collaborative work.
The only major difference that you have to be prepared for is the edits/version of internet collaborative works change a lot faster than printed collaborative works. If you are unsure of a point you cannot verify wait and the public will at some point debate that point and reach a more accurate detail of that point.
As a side point the reason why I like both Mahalo, wikipedia and Google Knol is that each has set up a governance approach that seems to work with their collaborators in producing accurate information that can be relied upon.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 19, 2009 09:46 PM
Valid point well taken. If you think how our news comes to us....it is also collaborative. Our governance when working, isn't a tiny scribble on page three after a huge headline on page one.
Report
April 21, 2009 02:13 PM
I'd like to give everyone "Best Answer" for this. Please accept my tip of $1 in appreciation!
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- cytotec, December 12, 2009 06:51 AM
- brighteyesz710, December 12, 2009 06:50 AM
- nickolasparena, December 12, 2009 06:42 AM
- shtrudel, December 12, 2009 06:37 AM
- aimee, December 12, 2009 06:26 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
That "lost my brains" quote is cute....
I think Mahalo CAN be as referenced if users don"t only use google and wiki....if we take the extra time to check sources, find more obscure pages that are accurate and use other search engines, bots and blogs when appropriate.
Google and Wiki can give you a start.....but as with all internet info......we must use caution,
Never mind, at least we should give it a try ! Thanks for encouraging my will to check my sources better in the future.