Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Wikipedia


Resurrexi

  

42 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Nihil Obstat

[quote name='philothea' post='1929191' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:47 PM']Do you make corrections? You really should.[/quote]
I concur. Your pedantic personality is a force to be reckoned with on Wikipedia.
Just make sure you can use the word 'cogent' in normal conversation. When I used to contribute, that was the buzzword everyone seemed to throw around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LouisvilleFan

Wikipedia is shown to be equally or even more accurate that traditional encyclopedias, especially on controversial topics due to the great amount of attention they receive from people giving input from every point of view. When you read a traditional encyclopedia, you're reading about a topic from the stance of only one or maybe a few people and regardless of how well educated they are and removed from bias they try to be, there is always some bias and even ignorance that wikipedia is able to compensate for.

No encylopedia is sufficient as a source for academic research, but then wikipedia can hook you up with sources that are sufficient.

I find wikipedia to be an incredible wealth of information. It's impressive how quickly we can find answers or research topics in a matter of minutes that would have required a trip to the library to flip through books only ten years ago. Comes in very handy when engaging workplace debates :)

Edited by LouisvilleFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are people complaining about the content of wikipedia?

if you think a certain content on the site is false then edit it.

what's the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ReinnieR' post='1929380' date='Jul 23 2009, 09:36 AM']why are people complaining about the content of wikipedia?

if you think a certain content on the site is false then edit it.

what's the problem?[/quote]

Why bother editing what someone else will probably come along and re-edit in a few weeks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidei Defensor

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1929140' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:15 PM']I once spent an entire evening, which was three or four hours, linking through physics topics. Can't understand any of it, but quarks and black holes and further dimensions are SO COOL to read about. :P[/quote]
That's usually what I do, too. I start in some medical or drug topic and move my way through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Prose used to complain about getting into editing duels over NFP.

I just think it is weird my husband is on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LouisvilleFan

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1929382' date='Jul 23 2009, 11:38 AM']Why bother editing what someone else will probably come along and re-edit in a few weeks?[/quote]

This doesn't stop millions of other people from updating wikipedia on the topics on they care about. You need to abide by wikipedia's standards though, and learn to phrase things from a third-person academic stance so that it's seen as providing information rather than prosylezation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

homeschoolmom

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1929056' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:40 PM']I'd never use it for sources, but it's a good way to get a general idea on a topic, and springboard into legitimate sources.[/quote]
I use it for non-research stuff... when a celebrity has died... What network was I Dream of Jeanie on? (NBC) etc. really nitpicky stuff. It's fast and usually pretty accurate on that stuff... and if it's not, it's not life or death to me.

When I'm really board, I play a game I like to call Six Degrees of Wikipedia. I pick two seemingly unrelated topics (Mel Blanc and.... Love Canal for example) and see if I can get from one to the other by clicking on links within the articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidei Defensor

I tend to use it when I'm unsatisfied with the very general results I get elsewhere, when I'm looking for really detailed information on something--like how a certain drug is metabolized and what exactly happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth_Seeker

I agree with what someone said earlier - I think it's a great way to get general information. I would never directly use it for a paper, debate, etc, but some of the articles have great links to hard research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my classmates last semester quoted from Wikipedia in her paper on Matthew. The only reason I know is because I got her critique. I'm a Catherine M, she was Christine M. The prof was perturbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1929708' date='Jul 23 2009, 03:44 PM']One of my classmates last semester quoted from Wikipedia in her paper on Matthew. The only reason I know is because I got her critique. I'm a Catherine M, she was Christine M. The prof was perturbed.[/quote]

That would be sad if someone doing post-graduate education quoted from Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...