Wikipedia

[Paddy]

Do you like wikipedia? I think it is good but cannot be used exclusively as some of the stuff is complete balderdash!

[Mr Blue Sky]

Do you like wikipedia? I think it is good but cannot be used exclusively as some of the stuff is complete balderdash!

Yep, I use it a lot.

[Stratman]

Do you like wikipedia? I think it is good but cannot be used exclusively as some of the stuff is complete balderdash!

I imagine people are using it right now.

[Paddy]

Check out the Frasier section. Try adding something.

[Elphaba]

Check out the Frasier section. Try adding something.

I added something to it a few days ago, worked okay I think.

[Elphaba]

Do you like wikipedia? I think it is good but cannot be used exclusively as some of the stuff is complete balderdash!

What are you thinking of particularly?

[Mayday Malone]

I'll be typical me and say I don't like it too much. That and we're told or were told in our first year not to use it. Not a firm source of info. Still, that's just me...noothsayer.

[Mr Blue Sky]

Do you like wikipedia? I think it is good but cannot be used exclusively as some of the stuff is complete balderdash!

What are you thinking of particularly?

Yeah, I'd like to know too. They have some extremely strict moderators there - I've seen certain submissions debated endlessly, especially concerning the validity of sources.

It's a tough place to post complete shite on and get away with.

[Paddy]

To be fair, there isn't to much, but some people who are 100% alive are apparently dead, and have been for a number of years.

[!Amz!]

I swear by Wikipedia. I use it to find out spoilers and stuff for TV shows - but it really pisses me off when people say stuff that's plainly not true. I've used it a couple of times for my homework too and it's quite good if you wanna find out how a movie ends without actually watching it!

[Paddy]

It's good but you can't use it exclusively. It's good for T.V. and film though, like Amz said.

[Mayday Malone]

The Star Trek and Star Wars wiki's (Memory Alpha & Wookiepedia) are good for that stuff too, for little facts. For cemented facts, a book never can guide you too wrong.

[Elphaba]

To be fair, there isn't to much, but some people who are 100% alive are apparently dead, and have been for a number of years.

Gosh, I've never come across that. Who are you thinking of?

But surely the beauty of Wiki is that if you find blatant falsehoods or mistakes you can log in and correct them? If some poor person is being logged as dead when they're alive you should probably go in there and fix it!

[Mayday Malone]

I do hope that the page showing David Beckham being born in China and playing for Charlton Athletic or some such was changed by now. Wouldn't be fair on China or Charlton for one thing.

[Paddy]

I do hope that the page showing David Beckham being born in China and playing for Charlton Athletic or some such was changed by now. Wouldn't be fair on China or Charlton for one thing.

It's things like that I'm talking about. Also, there was a radio dj was was 'dead'.

[Mr Blue Sky]

I do hope that the page showing David Beckham being born in China and playing for Charlton Athletic or some such was changed by now. Wouldn't be fair on China or Charlton for one thing.

It's things like that I'm talking about. Also, there was a radio dj was was 'dead'.

Yeah, there's quite often the odd practical joke on there, but they don't tend to last too long. It's the price they pay for having users able to log in and change stuff themselves, but the mods are pretty on the ball I find. I once saw a cracker where Simon Cowell's Wiki had Louis Walsh down there as his gay lover! Needless to say, it was soon taken down...

[Paddy]

I think it's too easy to edit a topic.

[Elphaba]

I think it's too easy to edit a topic.

Well, you can take issue with that, but really that's the whole concept on which it's based - that it's a true community project and that the good will of the many will keep the troublemakers in check without the need for formal protection. It does work most of the time, IMO, and I've yet to see any obvious vandalisms or other nonsense that remain for more than a very short while.

Okay there might be inaccuracies, but aren't there similar inaccuracies in the 'proper' encyclopaedias like Britannica etc? Their stuff can be riddled with outmoded 'facts' and totally baseless claims that are respectable simply because they've been repeated for a long time by 'authorities'. If Wiki teaches us to never totally trust any informed source and always check facts for ourselves, maybe that's a good thing.

[Moon-Crane]

Wiki is fine for what it is - one point of reference. Nobody should use any single source as the basis for their 'answers' anyway - so it can be a handy place to use as a starting point for subjects. No less valid than other reference points.

What's a fact anyway, apart from a consensus amongst a majority - still doesn't make something the right answer, necessarily.

I am interested to see the future of it. Where does one person's right to post information become an invasion of privacy or irrelevant for others to know about another person, for example? Do we really need detailed personal information on various celebrities pages? And some info seems to be allowed when speculative, backed up by some dubious quote from some printed rag, rather than 'factual'.

[Paddy]

But some people believe everything on there.

[Moon-Crane]

But some people believe everything on there.

That's not the problem of Wiki, though - some people believe everything in the Encyclopedia Britannica, some people believe everything in the Daily Mail, etc.

[Paddy]

But normally everything in the Encyclopedia Britannica is correct though.

[Wezzo]

But normally everything in the Encyclopedia Britannica is correct though.

You'd be surprised..

[Paddy]

You still haven't persuaded me!

[Moon-Crane]

But normally everything in the Encyclopedia Britannica is correct though.

Considering we don't really know enough about the vast majorty of things in the universe, anybody who believes everything is correct in any reference book is pretty stupid. 'Facts' change every day.