MojoMan Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 It seems that wikiepedia has become a de facto reference source. Since the info in wiki is reader supplied, how much do you trust it? FWIW, when I have looked up topics in areas that I consider myself knowledgable, the info seems correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggamer3 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 id is extremely accurate. Me and my buddies would like to play games with it to change certian facts in peoples historys and see how long they remained there. Our record was like 15 minutes we had changen Michael Jacksons history to mentioning he was a great well known babysitter who enjoyed the comfort of little kids.(i dont know why this was erased it was accurate) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Their content is hotly debated on message boards far nerdier than ours here. What I love is that they have content on the most obscure of stuff. There was a detailed reference to Pitagora Suicchi... the japanese show I linked to the other day with the marbles. Every Simpsons episode has it's own entry. I find that complex and controversial subjects are given a very even treatment. I like it. I think those commies have a pretty good thing going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apathy Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) I have to admit...the Vito Acconci entry seemed fairly accurate (thankfully no pictures of some his more "freelance" pieces). But I still don't trust the site 100 percent and likely never will. Edited July 17, 2006 by Apathy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 It's very accurate on historical matters, I've found. The controversy comes with current / recent events Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 It's very accurate on historical matters, I've found. The controversy comes with current / recent events word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 It is essentially the Hitchhiker's Guide to Earth. I've found things to be pretty accurate. Last month, National Geographic magazine showed a graph on the entry for "evolution" and all the changes it has been though over the last five years. It shows that it had been edited thousands of times and that there were hugh discussions on their nerdy message boards over the exact wording, never mind the general content. All in all, it's probably a better resource than the traditional encyclopedias because of its open nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I was looking at some entry on economics the other day (I can't remember what entry it was right now) and I was somewhat surprised how much of the entry was talked some items of rather minor importance. The extra information wasn't necessarily wrong, but an editor would never have devoted so much space to talking about this minor item and as such, it did make the overall entry messed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Overall, it's very accurate. It's open nature is a double-edged sword. It will allow it to adapt to new information unlike traditional reference materials. It will also allow it to be unedited at times and unfocused. If I were writing a paper or article, I would use it as a guideline but not a reference persay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) There is no "The Huddle.com" article; we should create one.... Edited July 18, 2006 by Goopster24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Dawg Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 There is no "The Huddle.com" article; we should create one.... Don't give away our secret! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 There is no "The Huddle.com" article; we should create one.... There was an entire entry on the "Life the Universe and Everything" forum at GameFaqs (like The Tailgate, only a lot more bannings)... so I don't see why there can't be one on the Huddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Use Wiki as a springboard to other references, but don't rely on it unless it's backed up by more reputable sources. Like our greatest president said, "Trust, but verify." http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=11109 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Use Wiki as a springboard to other references, but don't rely on it unless it's backed up by more reputable sources. Like our greatest president said, "Trust, but verify." http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=11109 Clinton said that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I seem to end up there pretty often. I like it for a quick reference and I suppose if I need to double check the info, I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 There have been numerous articles regarding how inaccurate it can be. That being said, there have been documented problems with school textbooks as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 There have been numerous articles regarding how inaccurate it can be. That being said, there have been documented problems with school textbooks as well... Tocuhe. Wikipedia rocks, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Tocuhe. Wikipedia rocks, period. yeah, but if you use it in a research papaer, you are playing with fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 generally a pretty good, fair, reliable source, but never a last stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 There have been numerous articles regarding how inaccurate it can be. That being said, there have been documented problems with school textbooks as well... Agree! There was someone on here,Tailgate, that disputed the accuracy of Snopes. I'm sure that no reference is 100% correct. But I feel confident quoting both Snopes & Wik. The old Encyclopedias were inaccurate just because of the time it took from event to printed material. We're in a world that evolves by the minute, not the day/week/year. With that will come errors. Newsweek, Time, even the local newspaper can't guarantee 100% accuracy. Crap.....when I was in college, yes they had colleges in those days , Time & Newsweek were the #1 resources for info newer than a year old. No prof ever questioned my references when I used those, and I have to believe that today no prof would question Wik or Snopes! Unless they are Repugnican! JMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) here's an example of wikipedia providing inaccurate (or at least extremely controversial) information as if it were not that questionable at all: the Laffer Curve: In 2006, the US Treasury reported that monthly tax receipts in April reached their second-highest point in the history of the nation, totalling $315.1 billion, second only to April 2001's mark of $332 billion prior to the burst of the Internet stock bubble. These results contradicted dire predictions in the wake of enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, suggesting that the US was still on the right half of the Laffer Curve. Edited July 19, 2006 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 yeah, but if you use it in a research papaer, you are playing with fire. C'mon Pope; you know I am better than that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.