WIKI IS A SOURCE

[EminemBase]

I'm getting sick of people saying "wiki ain't no source" in every fucking post where information is retrieved from there now. If you think that, fine - We all know that now, you don't need to say it every single time. We get it.

Reason this is in the debate section is I want to open debate on Wiki's validity. I'm of the opinion it IS very valid and it IS a source. I lay my reasoning in the following extract. Which is a reply from me in a post made in the Eminem section. I didn't feel the need to re-write it as I feel this is good enough...

--

There may be some spurious information on Wiki but it usually disappears within time. Due to its collective nature, things get corrected. Steven Pinker also compared the English language to Wiki. Well, all language. Saying human language was the "first Wiki". Technically it shouldn't work and there are no set rules, despite arrogant 'language enthusiasts' trying to correct people all the time (I do it on here to bug people) - But in reality, all language is a collective effort that's fueled by an evolutionary need to communicate.

Similarly you get a lot of slang, miss-use and nonsense within language. But that doesn't immediately make the language itself invalid. It's upto you to spot it's validity and you can decide which version(s) you choose to take part in.

Wiki is natured similarly. Even Richard Dawkins said he was shocked by the accuracy of the biology pages. On the less-popular or more... Celebrity-orientated pages you get a lot of rumour but things get dwindled down and facts get put straight. The correct overturn the incorrect. So yes, IT IS A SOURCE. People who look at things with face-value and think they're being clever by denouncing Wiki don't actually understand the nature of it. They know not what they mock. It wouldn't be as big as it is and have connected like it has if was literally a worthless rumour-mill.

(and to anyone who goes on the page and writes something about me or something about themselves and then posts it here trying to illustrate the point they can add things... Yes, well done. We get that you can do that. You're missing the true point.)

--

Just to conclude, I am NOT saying therefore all information on Wiki by definition is valid. So there's no need to go and get wrong information and highlight it. What I'm trying to emphasize is this does not discount WIki as a source much in the way bad use of language does not discount the use of language as communication. It's collective and works itself out by that group-reasoning. There will still be trash within but it's up to you to clean it up and agree. Doesn't mean the source is useless. Although, The Source is.

[dR3]

I agree.

I think most people post "Wiki ain't a source" as a kind of an internet meme (basically they are trolling).

[theJFKshow]

It's a source for widely known information, not breaking news. They had my fake Recovery album cover up for a month.

[EminemBase]

It's a source for widely known information, not breaking news. They had my fake Recovery album cover up for a month.

Yes exactly. Counting on it for reliable news is not what I'm saying you should do. But it is very much a source for recorded, known information.

That's not what it was intended for anyway, people are just trying to urge it to become a news source. Which, it can be in varying degrees, you just have to cross-reference information for yourself. Which, you should do anyway. Counting on one source for anything is silly.

[Good For Nothing]

wiki is a VERY reliable source for topics that have occurred in the past imo, it's the first place i go for track listings of old cd's among other things, but it fails when it comes to things that are in the future such as release date's, not all the time but the majority of it.

edit - I just realised that's basically what you stated on your last post.

[Emadyville]

I agreed with you before and I will again of course. One of my professors 2 years ago said that wikipedia was 96% percent accurate, which was more accurate than some other big name source. Of course people can edit it, but the info gets checked, if it's innaccurate then it gets deleted.

[Robbie G]

I agree. If I was writing a research paper for school I would always start at Wikipedia for the basic information then double check it with other sources.

[Almostlity]

Wiki is not a source

[classthe_king]

One time my friend had to do a report on King George so I changed Wiki right before he got on and said that King George was gay so he saw it and asked the teacher and then showed her so I had my teacher thinking King George was gay. It was the funniest thing ever

[mrjizzbomber]

All information in Wikipedia should contain links to primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Without a proper reference, I would not trust the information contained in Wikipedia.

That said, a good majority of the information in Wikipedia IS referenced to a better source... in which case, just post the real source, rather than posting the Wikipedia article.

For the information that is not properly referenced, even Wikipedia recognizes that the information is not reliable... thats why you see all those annotations saying "citation needed".



EminemBase, you are an intelligent and savvy person. I think you, and people like you, can properly use Wikipedia... I have no problem with that. You seem to overestimate some of your peers on this forum. When placed in the wrong hands, Wikipedia becomes a source of huge annoyance, because people will create useless topics announcing something ridiculous... information where the ONLY source is Wikipedia.

People seem to treat Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source of information. Sure, Wikipedia is a source (tertiary source - and a weak one at that at times... maybe we can call it a quaternary source???). But Wikipedia is NOT a primary or secondary source, and unfortunately, many people think it is.

So stop your crusade for Wikipedia. You, and the other people who understand how the website works, can use it just fine - and thats great. But Wikipedia is a tool which gets abused, so understand why we don't want people to think its a source. I would rather have people treat it as not a source at all, than try to explain the difference between primary and tertiary-ish sources of information.

[Solace]

One time my friend had to do a report on King George so I changed Wiki right before he got on and said that King George was gay so he saw it and asked the teacher and then showed her so I had my teacher thinking King George was gay. It was the funniest thing ever

You fucking bastard

[randomghost]

One time my friend had to do a report on King George so I changed Wiki right before he got on and said that King George was gay so he saw it and asked the teacher and then showed her so I had my teacher thinking King George was gay. It was the funniest thing ever

You fucking bastard

[Devil'sAdvocate]

One time my friend had to do a report on King George so I changed Wiki right before he got on and said that King George was gay so he saw it and asked the teacher and then showed her so I had my teacher thinking King George was gay. It was the funniest thing ever

You fucking bastard

C'mon son

[Epidemik]

it may be a source..i dont think its a RELIABLE source... this guy i worked with who is from Halifax claimed he grew up with Classified the white canadian rapper and beatboxed for him before he was famous... but yet when we asked him what Classifieds real name was he didnt know. this guy was also known for making up lots of lame stories
ANYWAY as a joke we posted this on wiki under Classifieds page:

Classified enlisted the help of fellow Nova Scotia native Joel Roy to beatbox during some of his songs. The actual singles that Roy beatboxed for are unknown but it is believed that he can be heard in the single "The Maritimes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_(rapper)\

btw.... we added this over a year ago and it was never removed..

its complete bullshit that we made up and they actually kept it there as truthful information, so to say that wiki is a source is fine... but its not a RELIABLE source because sometimes the info is completely untrue.

[EminemBase]

EminemBase, you are an intelligent and savvy person. I think you, and people like you, can properly use Wikipedia... I have no problem with that. You seem to overestimate some of your peers on this forum. When placed in the wrong hands, Wikipedia becomes a source of huge annoyance, because people will create useless topics announcing something ridiculous... information where the ONLY source is Wikipedia.

People seem to treat Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source of information. Sure, Wikipedia is a source (tertiary source - and a weak one at that at times... maybe we can call it a quaternary source???). But Wikipedia is NOT a primary or secondary source, and unfortunately, many people think it is.

So stop your crusade for Wikipedia. You, and the other people who understand how the website works, can use it just fine - and thats great. But Wikipedia is a tool which gets abused, so understand why we don't want people to think its a source. I would rather have people treat it as not a source at all, than try to explain the difference between primary and tertiary-ish sources of information.

Thanks. And you're right, that's something I noticed I do myself - Over-estimate people. IN reality I have a shitty view of humanity, in terms of my hope in them lmao. But when dealing with individuals I've caught myself countless times just assuming they're not as dumb to as presume X or that they will surely just know Y.

This came to a head when I went to a psychiatrist about ADHD and... Well, I shouldn't even have to overestimate a psychiatrist, they're supposed to be the professional. But what I discovered after 30 minutes of talking to him was that he knew nothing about ADHD (he admitted this), thought of it as pretty much a non-existent / non-worthy mental disorder and pretty much dismissed it.

YET, despite knowing NOTHING about this - He expected me to take his totally invaluable, worthless opinion on it as golden. I felt like kicking him in the face. As my issues were my life and I was placing them into his hands with an assumed trust which he just spat back at me like a fucking ignorant piece of shit. So from that point on I learned never to overestimate people.

It's truly unbelievable how stupid and ignorant so many are. And I'm not even saying this arrogantly, I'm saying it realistically. A lot of people on here have this perception I think I'm above people or that "my opinion > their opinion" which is not true at all. If these people bothered to read my fuckings posts they'd see I always take into account whatever opinion is at hand and simply retort to it. I don't think I'm above anybody, in terms of class or stature or that type of vibe. I'm from a shit hole city full of drugs, violence and ass-holes. I've got no superiority complex on that level.

People on here confuse explaining yourself well or typing a lot with being arrogant or thinking your opinion matters more. I'm long-winded, I'll give you that, I over-explain things etc. but that's not the same thing as what they're accusing me of. Also, with all that said - Morons do exist and when you're faced with one, treating a moron like a moron isn't arrogant or thinking you're above it. It's just appropriate measure. Treat idiots like idiots and respectful people respectfully. I don't bad-mouth or talk 'above' people I like / respect here. Where as somebody who has a complex issue - Does it to EVERYBODY, quite clearly I don't.

I also am not pretentious which is what some of them say. All I'm ever trying to do is write / communicate as clearly as I possibly can. I'm the same in real life. I'm just trying to present the thoughts as crystal clear as they're appearing to me in my own head. So if I use a more descriptive word it's in an effort to emphasize something as best I can, not to try and sound smarter.

Ironically, I do the exact fucking opposite of what some claim. Like you said, I over-estimate people but that means I'm giving people the utmost intellectual respect whenever I can. Because, it's not fun to converse with yourself in circles, I want to be speaking to people who are on a level with me whenever possible so why would I talk down to anybody or think I'm above them. It's self-defeating in respects to my aims of interaction. I never talk down to people, if I don't filter myself that means I'm treating you with as much respect as I treat myself because I'm assuming you'll pick up and understand everything I say and why. If I was dumbing myself down, THAT would be thinking I'm above you. Because that would mean I'm assuming you wouldn't get me on 360% so I better give you half that.