| VIP |
|---|
Subscribe to become a VIP member of SST!
· Request More Often
· Unshared Requests
· Request Countdown Timer
· Request Ready Indicator
· Your Request History
· Access To The VIP Forum
· Add More Favorites
:: Click Here To Upgrade ::
:: Give VIP as a Gift ::
|
|
|
|
View previous topic ::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Sound_Track
Lieutenant
Joined: May 15, 2006
Member#: 14512
Posts: 203
Location: Texas
   
|
 Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: WIKIPEDIA -- It is entertaining . . . . |
 
|
I enjoy reading stories over at WIKIPEDIA. It's a nice summary of things I might not know anything about. Even a revered Encyclopedia like World Book, has it's "biased" and "filtered" sources.....
So those who claim that there's an unbiased definitve source for information are sadly delusioned . . . .
Looks like those from business and politics and religion have their own vested interest to protect on the public encyclopedia WIKIPEDIA.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2874112.ece
_________________
Emergency Command Override 100375 ---- "READY WHEN YOU ARE SGT. PEMBRY ...." |
|
 |
mrfinnigan
Cadet 3
Joined: Sep 02, 2007
Member#: 18731
Posts: 13
Location: Littleton, MA
 
  |
|
Posted:
Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
Wikipedia has to be one of the best sources of information on Earth. If there's something wrong, generally, that problem will be fixed soon (despite what college professors may tell you). I'm an active contributor (mostly for Linux distributions... lol) and personally LOVE what Wikipedia is trying to do. It's also a great way to find out about new stuff (I found out about QUAKE and Unreal Tournament by clicking on "See Also" links, starting off at Doom).
Although Wikipedia is just like Google--There will ALWAYS, inevitably, be people that say it sucks. Well, I say that's wrong.
_________________
If Music be the food of love, play on,
give me excess of it, that, surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken and die. |
|
|
|
PomPom
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Aug 19, 2005
Member#: 11288
Posts: 255
Location: France Chatillon(92)
 |
|
Posted:
Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
The big problem with Wiki is that as everyone can contribute, it also brings mistakes sometimes.
The general way to be sure is to compare with other references, or links.
_________________
In tartiflette we trust !! |
|
|
|
 soundtrackradio
Ensign
Joined: Nov 26, 2003
Member#: 3797
Posts: 36
Location: Australia
|
|
Posted:
Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
Wiki is a great 'free' reference source for most things it also has it's problems like with any big Enterprise commercial or free. I like to read it quite regularly and use info for my projects. 
_________________
Soudtrackradio is Go! |
|
|
|
 ElJay
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined: Oct 22, 2007
Member#: 19172
Posts: 87
Location: Hamburg (Germany/Europe)
  |
|
Posted:
Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA -- It is entertaining . . . . |
|
| Sound_Track wrote: |
| I enjoy reading stories over at WIKIPEDIA... So those who claim that there's an unbiased definitve source for information are sadly delusioned . ... |
Hi, Sound_Track !
... good you bring this theme into discussion, very often in the SST Chat room Wikipedia Links are used for quick exchange of "definitions" or "background informations".
One basic rule everybody should follow in a media society. Don't trust anything on 1st view. I am working in the media businesses, and I am very astonished about how "simple" & "quick" the normal people as media consumers believe, what they get via different media channels (newspapers, eZines, TV etc. ...)
Why should it be different from the normal world ?? - Everywhere in every field, branch exist Lobbying, Corruption, Manipulation. Why should it be different at Wikipedia?! - It doesn't astonish to find there such forces and bad attempts of cosmetique PR work.
But... behind Wikipedia - as a social network project - is a Foundation (established in 2003), and the Co-Founder JIMBO (Jimmy D. Wales) has some really keen visions since the birth of Wikipedia in 2000-2001 to come to reality, especially to give access to the 3rd world cost free informations. That's an aspect I really miss in your view onto Wiki. Have a look at some projects...
Video of and notes from Jimmys Talk on Free Culture, Transparency, and Search
http://www.nowpublic.com/jimmy_wales_gives_talk_on_free_culture_transparency_and_search
The profile of JIMBO...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
And it's not an organisation structure of WIKI where everything is decided "centralistic". That would destroy the spirit of (cost free) knowledge sharing. Nothing in this world is cost free. Wikipedia takes a lot of ressources of IT infrastructure, manpower and passion. - So many people enthusiastically like to edit, write and take part in this project. That's more important than the well known "negative forces" from side of huge giant concerns. We all know this from the past and the shadow of bad image, like with your link address, will fall back badly onto such intregants.
On my own I just test out to become an editor at Wikipedia in my fields of knowledge...
Profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IMC-OnAir
... and I must say with my first experiences the same in the English spoken Wikipedia Community and in the German language Wikipedia: There exist harsh rules, very harsh. I was astonished what discipline there exist. Similar restrictive like in a regular busienss oriented, commercial corporation. The hurdels until an article is given free are high, very high. And everything is transparent. Each article you can see the history behind who edited. It's absolute transparent. No secrets behind.
A plenty of admins observe what happens anywhere and you immediatelly get a penalty if you hurt some of the rules, which are very, very clever and make sense to establish a qualitatively writing. It's much quicker a short reaction time of less 24 hours than in big corporations I made my experiences over years as consultant for strategic marketing.
That way I think you can confidence WIKIPEDIA till a specific edge. Much more than a commercial source (proof on your own how big the shares of political parties are of TV broadcasters, daily newspapers etc. ... That's everything else than transparency.)
Anyhow - this source of information, I mean WIki - only should be one source you take. A desk research of responsability less takes 3 different sources to proof the truth. Less...
Enjoy listening to good music ! - ElJay from Europe/Hamburg/Germany
_________________
I am ... I can... I will... I believe.
- The way of possibility thinking. |
|
|
|
Hurr78
Commander
Joined: Feb 12, 2004
Member#: 5061
Posts: 739
Location: Toronto
|
|
Posted:
Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
Wikipedia is often made out as a big threat to serious academic work. But the fact of the matter is that people aren't supposed to be citing ANY kind of an encyclopedia, online or otherwise. If you're really wanting to demonstrate something, as ElJay here says, you'll want to point to a variety of acknowledged sources (e.g. books and articles).
Besides, Wikipedia is a lot of fun |
|
|
|
 Arya
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Dec 10, 2004
Member#: 8715
Posts: 263
Location: Ontario
|
|
Posted:
Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
Yeah, our profs just about die anytime a student mentions Wikipedia, and for good reason. Lots of kids are dumb enough to try and use it as a cited source. I still use it all the time though, just for fun and random fact-finding missions.
You can use it for school work, I have before, but you use it to find real, trust-worthy sources elsewhere. The minute a marker sees "Wiki" anything in a work citied page they tend to suffer heart failure, so please, think of the markers. 
_________________
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
