I use it too, for a quick starting point, but sometimes the articles are so well written that I'm tempted to believe them. The old saying applies here: Trust but verify!
... and that's why there is always a way of challenging the content of the articles, the balance and the motivation behind them, the validity of their sources, and/or the completeness of them.
Now, ... how many other authoritative encyclopedic sources out there offer that kind of openness, hmmmm? See, it's one thing for a source that needs more work on its articles that gives you that opportunity to openly challenge what they have to say. It's quite another when said source does _not_ give you that opportunity. (Oohhh, for example Conservapedia, a wiki based site that allows for _no_ editing or challenging of their articles, ... at all!)
And which ones would you wind up trusting because of this?
Compare that, and Wikipedia, and notice that you can challenge, and even edit many Wikipedia pages, you cannot do the same to Conservapedia. At all.
Go to Conservapedia. Go to _any_ page there. Click on the 'View Source' tab at the top of the page. On every page it tells you that you cannot edit that page due to one reason or another, usually because you have to be one of their administrators or 'users' (which gives NO info on how to become one.)
Whereas on Wikipedia, many pages are editable. And they are a _lot_ more open to be challenged because of the reasons I mentioned earlier, reasons that do not exist on Conservapedia.
And here is what Wikipedia has to say re: Conservapedia. And I can see their point.
Hell, Conservapedia is a LOT like TWI in this respect. ... Accept what they have to say based on their authority, ... period!
Me too, but LindaZ's point is well taken... wikipedia is NOT good to use as a SOLE source. IF you need to rely on anything you read on wikepedia, verify it with other sources.
It's all well and good that Wikipedia takes such a collective approach to creating what appears to be an encyclopedia. That link I posted is merely a reminder that it's wise to take care how you use it.
I had to laugh, thinking about the encyclopedias I grew up with...big, heavy volumes on the library shelf, or in your bookcase at home if your parents got talked into buying a set by an encyclopedia salesman. Can you imagine sitting in the library, crossing out an entry and replacing it with your take on the subject? Somehow envisioning that scenario really cracks me up.
I had to laugh, thinking about the encyclopedias I grew up with...big, heavy volumes on the library shelf, or in your bookcase at home if your parents got talked into buying a set by an encyclopedia salesman. Can you imagine sitting in the library, crossing out an entry and replacing it with your take on the subject? Somehow envisioning that scenario really cracks me up.
I never touch those old encyclopedias anymore. They're like a big time capsule or last year's news. Plus having to search through each topic one at a time with big books covering your desk, ugh! Time consuming and unreliable for up-to-date info. How many times do you have to check the date on the books? And paper looks better in a forest. most information is online now and wikipedia can help direct you there, in some ways better than google. I can't imagine going back to those old things.
I was once telling this twi girl who was in college at the time about the "word-faith movement" and twi or something. I mentioned in passing to just look it up on wikipedia.
She got red in the face and went off on how anyone can post on wikipedia, so it must be bull yada yada.
wikipedia must say the moon isn't made of cheese, so don't use it.
Recommended Posts
Bolshevik
I love wikipedia as quick reference. There's usually links at the bottom of the page for reliable references.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
I use it too, for a quick starting point, but sometimes the articles are so well written that I'm tempted to believe them. The old saying applies here: Trust but verify!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... and that's why there is always a way of challenging the content of the articles, the balance and the motivation behind them, the validity of their sources, and/or the completeness of them.
Now, ... how many other authoritative encyclopedic sources out there offer that kind of openness, hmmmm? See, it's one thing for a source that needs more work on its articles that gives you that opportunity to openly challenge what they have to say. It's quite another when said source does _not_ give you that opportunity. (Oohhh, for example Conservapedia, a wiki based site that allows for _no_ editing or challenging of their articles, ... at all!)
And which ones would you wind up trusting because of this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
can you site conservapedia?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
you can't trust anybody or anything
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
sorry I mean "cite"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Conservapedia
Compare that, and Wikipedia, and notice that you can challenge, and even edit many Wikipedia pages, you cannot do the same to Conservapedia. At all.
Go to Conservapedia. Go to _any_ page there. Click on the 'View Source' tab at the top of the page. On every page it tells you that you cannot edit that page due to one reason or another, usually because you have to be one of their administrators or 'users' (which gives NO info on how to become one.)
Whereas on Wikipedia, many pages are editable. And they are a _lot_ more open to be challenged because of the reasons I mentioned earlier, reasons that do not exist on Conservapedia.
And here is what Wikipedia has to say re: Conservapedia. And I can see their point.
Hell, Conservapedia is a LOT like TWI in this respect. ... Accept what they have to say based on their authority, ... period!
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
well I'd never heard of it.
wikipedia suites me fine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Me too, but LindaZ's point is well taken... wikipedia is NOT good to use as a SOLE source. IF you need to rely on anything you read on wikepedia, verify it with other sources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
It's all well and good that Wikipedia takes such a collective approach to creating what appears to be an encyclopedia. That link I posted is merely a reminder that it's wise to take care how you use it.
I had to laugh, thinking about the encyclopedias I grew up with...big, heavy volumes on the library shelf, or in your bookcase at home if your parents got talked into buying a set by an encyclopedia salesman. Can you imagine sitting in the library, crossing out an entry and replacing it with your take on the subject? Somehow envisioning that scenario really cracks me up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I never touch those old encyclopedias anymore. They're like a big time capsule or last year's news. Plus having to search through each topic one at a time with big books covering your desk, ugh! Time consuming and unreliable for up-to-date info. How many times do you have to check the date on the books? And paper looks better in a forest. most information is online now and wikipedia can help direct you there, in some ways better than google. I can't imagine going back to those old things.
were encyclopedia's ever a reliable source?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sure they were! ... until a few weeks after you get them and you have to order Yet Another Yearbook update.
World Book Encyclopedia. With a dark green and offwhite hardbound colors. ((sigh)) Now that brings back the memories.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's like everything else.
You have to temper it with good sense and a cautionary eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ps. since i'm not in high school, i would like to say
WHO CARES
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was once telling this twi girl who was in college at the time about the "word-faith movement" and twi or something. I mentioned in passing to just look it up on wikipedia.
She got red in the face and went off on how anyone can post on wikipedia, so it must be bull yada yada.
wikipedia must say the moon isn't made of cheese, so don't use it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.