Wikipedia Edits Show How Important The Site Has Become
from the rethinking-wikipedia dept
With all of the stories last month about various companies or organizations trying to edit Wikipedia to their own advantage, many Wikipedia haters used it as evidence as to why Wikipedia was no good. However, some are realizing exactly the opposite. Jeremy Wagstaff has a good column showing that all of these embarrassing Wikipedia edits show the reverse: it shows just how important and credible a source Wikipedia has become. As for the worries about biased entries, Wagstaff notes that nearly all of the controversial edits were quickly replaced. While some may point out that this doesn't help for the people who saw the edited entries, it appears that Wikipedia is trying to solve that problem by highlighting recent or less-trustworthy edits. So, really, all that we've learned from this is that Wikipedia is quite important -- and it's only getting better over time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wikipedia rocks...
I use it all the time for work and research.
My kids use it also for homework.
It is the google of encyclopedias.
Only thing left is to come up with a catchy phrase to use it as a verb like Google.
I Google, you google, he/she/it googles, they google, we google, I have googled; I will google it later.
Wikipedia is not as easy to gerund.
I Wikipedia, no maybe I wiki, no still to hard to say.
Once it becomes a verb, then it has become institutionalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia rocks...
also see post #3
Its a verb its institutionalized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia example: gerund
It is so much more than an encyclopedia.
It is a fountain of knowledge that millions drink from daily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia defintion / verb
verb
to look up any person, place, event, or other uncommon and random thing using Wikipedia.org
He wikied the word shnitzel and found that it was German for a sort of veal steak.
tags wikipedia google wikki wicca encyclopedia
by Gemelas Primos California Jan 14, 2006 email it
5. Wiki 1 thumb up
To look something up on the site Wikipedia.
To "wiki" is similar to to "google".
"Go wiki that and see what it says."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encyclopedias, or wikipedias, are a great place to settle a bar bet or to find out where to look to find out more. They are not the end all be all. The neat thing about a wiki as oppossed to a traditional encyclopedia, is that it's easier to update/correct mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a source of information that freely accessible to all and can be updated in an instant by people in the know. Granted, it has its drawbacks, but not nearly as many drawbacks as traditional encyclopedias, which include high cost, lack of new and properly updated information, lack of common information in general, etc.
I believe Wikipedia will be around for quite some time, and will become an ever-more reliable and well-used source of information. It should not be the only source one uses, since it can contain errors and biased information, but I think it will be one of the leading sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia will kill Google
Lots of information on a given topic but it's spread all over and impossible to find - solution: search engines find the information a bring it to one place. Problem: the information is not structured. It is presented as a mass of links that a user has to sort through.
Web rev B
People with information on a given topic bring it to a single place where it is structured, organized and discussed. Links still exist, but they are placed in a context.
The need for search is vastly reduced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia is great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia is great
The issue with educators and Wikipedia (to my understanding) is that students use only Wikipedia as a source or they use it as their primary research source. What ends up happening often is that a student turns in a paper with miss-information. Wikipedia is a good source, but not always the most reliable.
However, I agree that education should do more to embrace electronic sources of information. They constantly point to budgetary constraints as to why they have outdated textbooks (leads to your issue above) but seem slow to embrace the more readily available and less expensive electronic sources like Wikipedia.
I am not as in love with Wikipedia as some of the other posters here (I don’t foresee it “killing Google”) however I am sure there is a happy medium in there somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best solution, of course
In an ideal world, wikis would be what it's trying to be: a great knowledgebase where everyone is honest and doesn't have an ax to grind and understands the concept of keeping your damn mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about. But that's hardly the world we live in, so I'll stick to identifiable, disciplined sources of information I've come to trust, and not the same general public that also thinks that reality shows are neat, mistakes religious affiliation for spiritualism and morality, and turns nouns into verbs (wiki is a noun-- if I'm wearing a shirt, I'm not "shirting".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best solution, of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My College Discounts All Wiki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My College Discounts All Wiki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Many
#11 made some good points as well.
I agree that it should not be used as an only source, but I would think it could be used as A single source for any topic, as long as other sources agree.
#13 - Your professor is not cool. He should not be putting bogus information on wikipedia. I could be arguing against something. But just because I go and do it doesn't make me right. For example, if I spoke out against (to pull an example somebody used last week) bank robberies and that banks make it too easy; me going out and robbing a bank doesn't make me right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wilkpedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Falindraun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wikis...
the issue is using only one source of information. however you can get cyclical sources... paper a refers to b, which refers to c to d.... back to a
but then again...it is quite easy to "publish" something and have it be cited..
however having a massively open forum for information does help to keep it honest. i mean if 10 people "hate" something and try to discredit it... there are 100 more who'll "correct"
so.... it's just a matter of standing points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subject differences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subject differences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meh...
Most of its users are ignorant morons that believe everything they read without question.
While I don't deny Wikipedia's usefulness as a starting point in research, it is only good for that- a starting point.
Yes, there is plenty of valid accuarate data available however there is also a ton of heresay and unrefrenced "information" intermixed often without any way to determine what is what.
Mainly because, as with anything else "...of the people, by the people..." the main problem is the people themselves.
(now, let the flamespraying begin...LOL)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: meh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]