OT-Wikipedia WOW

[SargeantTex]

Man I was sitting here setting up a GC as Japan and was lookiing back and forth to Wiki to see where to stage my units and damn they have some seriously detailed articles on the pacific war there might have to pop a top and read it they have articles about battles I havent heard of been studying this war for 20 yrs!!!

[wdolson]

I know a lot of people on the forum tend to have a low opinion of Wikipedia.  I've found a few factual errors there, but for the most part it's pretty accurate. I read somewhere that somebody did a study comparing Wikipedia to traditional encyclopedias like Britannica and found that Wikipedia was on par and sometimes more accurate with the traditional encyclopedias.

Bill

[noguaranteeofsanity]

Like anything on the internet it has to be taken with a grain of salt, although is generally pretty accurate and the majority of articles have references you can check, which other encyclopedias or internet sites, often do not include. As a quick and easy reference it is hard to beat, but I also have come across a few questionable articles, including one on the Iraqi air force, which claimed the Iraqis had shot down numerous colation aircraft without loss and generally outperformed the coalition air forces during both gulf wars, which is more or less the exact opposite of what happened.

[SargeantTex]

yea I dont take what they print as the final word cause i know far more about history than the average reader and I know BS when I see it I have seen some articles in there that had political connotations to the writing and I knew what the real truth was!!!

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: SargeantTex

yea I dont take what they print as the final word cause i know far more about history than the average reader and I know BS when I see it I have seen some articles in there that had political connotations to the writing and I knew what the real truth was!!!

That's the important thing, never trust anything on wikipedia that is in any way debatable or has political significance. As long as you're looking for pure facts it's usually pretty OK.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I read somewhere that somebody did a study comparing Wikipedia to traditional encyclopedias like Britannica and found that Wikipedia was on par and sometimes more accurate with the traditional encyclopedias.

I think that study covered just science articles. Usually Wikipedia is OK, especially english Wiki. Some of the articles in finnish are just depressing.

[noguaranteeofsanity]

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

ORIGINAL: SargeantTex

yea I dont take what they print as the final word cause i know far more about history than the average reader and I know BS when I see it I have seen some articles in there that had political connotations to the writing and I knew what the real truth was!!!

That's the important thing, never trust anything on wikipedia that is in any way debatable or has political significance. As long as you're looking for pure facts it's usually pretty OK.

Also a lot of companies and organisations actually pay people to create or improve their wikipedia page/pages these days, which is why they often read like marketing hype and are devoid of criticism.

[jeffk3510]

I use Wikipedia for everything...I also can decide fact or fiction for the most part.  The article about the Iraqi AF destroying ours is bs...and most know that.  Good example.
 
I like Wikipedia because of the links that lead to new pages.  I can be reading about Abe Lincoln, and the next thing I know I am reading about how the mammoth became extinct.
 
It never fails to dissapoint.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

Like anything in the library or on the internet it has to be taken with a grain of salt, although is generally pretty accurate and the majority of articles have references you can check, which other encyclopedias or internet sites, often do not include. As a quick and easy reference it is hard to beat, but I also have come across a few questionable articles, including one on the Iraqi air force, which claimed the Iraqis had shot down numerous colation aircraft without loss and generally outperformed the coalition air forces during both gulf wars, which is more or less the exact opposite of what happened.

FIFY.

[crsutton]

It is a great quick reference. One of the best, and a very useful tool. I don't think I would cite in in an honors thesis.

[Panjack]

For simple facts wiki is generally okay. For any interpretation it often is less reliable then many printed sources.

And one of my aggravations with wiki is that the articles often highlight facts that are less important but of interest to someone willing to add this material to wiki...this material comes off as merely a type of spam.

For instance, some US college fraternities seem to have dedicated themselves to adding to biographical articles information about fraternity memberships and so you might read an article that starts off, "George Washington was the first President of the United States. He was a member of the kappa-delta-pi fraternity and the leading general in the American Revolution." [:(]

[JWE]

Always thought George was cool. Didn't know he was that cool.

Toga! Toga! Toga!

[wdolson]

I notice the Iraqi AF article has been updated.  The article now says that the Iraqi AF was essentially grounded in the 2003 invasion and managed to shoot down a couple of Coalition aircraft in the 1991 war, but overall they were bested by the Coalition.  It may be that someone sympathetic to the old regime got in there and did some editing, but the article has been reverted to the more factual version since.

Wikipedia does have the ability to lock down articles when they get suspicious activity and contributors can flags articles that look suspicious.  The current political topics can end up skewed, but after a few weeks they usually sort out to something pretty close to the actual facts.

Nothing is perfect.  Making something easy to edit also makes it easy for people to change for their own purposes.  They have been putting in checks to keep things from going too crazy, which has made it a bit better.

Bill

[JeffroK]

Wiki has improved greatly from its early days, but its just another source to be checked against other references.

Does anyone remember the Chinese Lancasters someone posted to win an arguement??[:D]

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Does anyone remember the Chinese Lancasters someone posted to win an argument??[:D]

I was going to bring that up but you beat me to it!! (Nothing gets forgotten around here..) [:D]


For the newcomers (names have been omitted to protect the ????):
A while back a newbie made a hasty statement on these forums that the Chinese operated Lancaster aircraft. After the inevitable and unfavourable peer review on this very knowledgeable forum , he refused to back down and went to Wikipedia, updated the entry to backup his story and then cited the reference as part of his argument. Unfortunately he forgot that Wikipedia has a change log function... oops!!!

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Does anyone remember the Chinese Lancasters someone posted to win an argument??[:D]

I was going to bring that up but you beat me to it!! (Nothing gets forgotten around here..) [:D]


For the newcomers (names have been omitted to protect the ????):
A while back a newbie made a hasty statement on these forums that the Chinese operated Lancaster aircraft. After the inevitable and unfavourable peer review on this very knowledgeable forum , he refused to back down and went to Wikipedia, updated the entry to backup his story and then cited the reference as part of his argument. Unfortunately he forgot that Wikipedia has a change log function... oops!!!

Mind like a hefalump, and about half as useful[8D]

[Local Yokel]

Chinese Lancasters Remember it well... Whoops!

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Does anyone remember the Chinese Lancasters someone posted to win an argument??[:D]

I was going to bring that up but you beat me to it!! (Nothing gets forgotten around here..) [:D]


For the newcomers (names have been omitted to protect the ????):
A while back a newbie made a hasty statement on these forums that the Chinese operated Lancaster aircraft. After the inevitable and unfavourable peer review on this very knowledgeable forum , he refused to back down and went to Wikipedia, updated the entry to backup his story and then cited the reference as part of his argument. Unfortunately he forgot that Wikipedia has a change log function... oops!!!

Cant fix stupid. [:D]

[Reg]

The real tragedy about the whole sorry episode is that a supposedly authoritative information source was polluted by a irresponsible adolescent having a dummy spit!!

I assume someone went in and fixed it up.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Chinese Lancasters Remember it well... Whoops!

Good times . . . good times.