Why is everyone so in love with Wikipedia?

[chatvite]

Really - I don't hate the site. It's just that it isn't anywhere near the best resource for anything. It is fine for a starting point when you don't know anything about a subject, but there are so many better resources. I'm just curious on why all the lash-back on my feelings for Wikipedia!

 

[Coolydudey]

Hahahaha, this is hilarious... But on a serious note, Wikipedia is a site that concisely (at least in general) presents facts in an interesting way, as well as has links between pages, which allows us to freely stumble between pages and so on. It just appeals to us.

 

[nanook]

because we don't know anything about any topic and it's a good starting point for every topic. i'm almost certain there is no alternative for every topic, other than google.

for me it's a hate love relationship, because in my opionon wikipedia misrepresentes many topics (well, i lied, i know something about one or two topics), like newspapers, like any jornalistic effort ... it's still extremely helpfull.

 

[Amagi82]

Please, OP, show me a better starting resource. Wikipedia, IMO, is one of the greatest repositories of human knowledge the world has ever known. Is it 100% accurate? No. But it's damn good.

 

[Eido]

Simple: it's an internet microcosm. A hyperlinked, user-friendly, and easily accessible library constantly being updated and edited with new and changing information while maintaining an acceptable level of informational accuracy.

Is it the best resource for all topics? No. It lacks in-depth information on many topics, is often inaccurate about details, and too often contains anecdotal information. But, it's still a far better starting point for many topics than a random Google search.

That being said, people do use it too much. College students in particular use it as a crutch.

 

[pernoctator]

1. Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists
2. Click a link that looks interesting.
3. Go back to step 2.

If you can do this for 10 minutes or more and still feel that Wikipedia lacks appeal, there's nothing I can do for you.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Yeah, I think the problem is not its lacking accuracy. It doesn't really lack accuracy any more than any other encyclopedia.

The problem is that it lacks depth. It is a great resource to get introduced to a wide variety of topics but to dive deeper into those topics one has to explore beyond wikipedia.

 

[Hadoblado]

That depends on the topic you're looking at. Some topics can't be summarised with just one web page, but even if it does not have the depth you are looking for, it will probably have a link that does.
Wiki represents an ease of introductory information that has not been experienced by man-kind before the internet. It's almost like an extension of your memory, but also includes topics you have not experienced.

When OP says other sources are 'better', in what way are these sources better? As a starting point wiki is near perfect.

 

[chatvite]

I am a librarian so I can find better resources for anything. Maybe that is my problem with Wikipedia. I know how to find valid and reliable information.

I never use Wikipedia, ever. Not even for a starting point. I will either use Google or other search option and go to more relevant and reliable sources. I know how to evaluate websites, so I guess I am just extremely biased against crowd sourcing.

 

[pernoctator]

I am a librarian so I can find better resources for anything.

For anything? That's a pretty bold claim. How do your librarian skills help you find a report on something that happened, or changed, less than a day ago?

I never use Wikipedia, ever. Not even for a starting point. I will either use Google or other search option and go to more relevant and reliable sources. I know how to evaluate websites, so I guess I am just extremely biased against crowd sourcing.

You mean you will skip Wikipedia results, even if you don't know anything about the topic yet? Why? Google results are sorted by machine. Wikipedia editors include people like you, who "know how to evaluate websites". You can save time if they have already done the legwork.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

For anything? That's a pretty bold claim. How do your librarian skills help you find a report on something that happened, or changed, less than a day ago?

Along these lines is a very good argument.

Prefer whatever you want, but realize Wikipedia has its own unique features that libraries themselves don't provide, there's no reason to be ignorant to that, and it would be best to use both Wikipedia and libraries.

Why limit yourself? Just use it for what it's good for and don't use it for what it's not.

 

[Hadoblado]

On a related note, never settle bets with wikipedia (unless you're thinking of cheating). I've had friends duped by quick changes to wiki pages :P

 

[chatvite]

For anything? That's a pretty bold claim. How do your librarian skills help you find a report on something that happened, or changed, less than a day ago?

Who makes these changes and updates to Wikipedia? There is a primary source somewhere and it isn't Wikipedia.

You mean you will skip Wikipedia results, even if you don't know anything about the topic yet? Why? Google results are sorted by machine. Wikipedia editors include people like you, who "know how to evaluate websites". You can save time if they have already done the legwork.

It doesn't mean that Google is the answer, either. Who is "they" that you keep referring to? Maybe a librarian?

Along these lines is a very good argument.

Prefer whatever you want, but realize Wikipedia has its own unique features that libraries themselves don't provide, there's no reason to be ignorant to that, and it would be best to use both Wikipedia and libraries.

What features? There's no reason to be ignorant of what librarians (good ones, I should say) can provide.

 

[chatvite]

On a related note, never settle bets with wikipedia (unless you're thinking of cheating). I've had friends duped by quick changes to wiki pages :P

Yup. My favorite was the hacked Roman Empire page. It once stated that the Roman Empire was founded by aliens.....etc.....it was hilarious!

 

[Eido]

Who makes these changes and updates to Wikipedia? There is a primary source somewhere and it isn't Wikipedia.

Yes, unconsolidated sources spread across the interwebs as well as brick and mortar libraries. If I want to know some basic information about a topic, I'm not going to go searching for some obscure article written in 1945 and only available by visiting a library 100 miles away; I'm going to go to wikipedia, read the entry, and then, if I'm still curious, seek out the original and more complete information.

This argument is like being mad at Best Buy because they let me buy keyboards without driving all the way to the manufacturer. Is Wikipedia a middle-man? Yes. But, guess what? So is a library.

 

[MissQuote]

1. Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists
2. Click a link that looks interesting.
3. Go back to step 2.

If you can do this for 10 minutes or more and still feel that Wikipedia lacks appeal, there's nothing I can do for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_unsolved_problems

There went anything I was going to get accomplished today.

 

[RockinLollipop]

It's like Google, if Google gave you a detailed overview for your search on one page.

 

[chatvite]

Yes, unconsolidated sources spread across the interwebs as well as brick and mortar libraries. If I want to know some basic information about a topic, I'm not going to go searching for some obscure article written in 1945 and only available by visiting a library 100 miles away; I'm going to go to wikipedia, read the entry, and then, if I'm still curious, seek out the original and more complete information.

This argument is like being mad at Best Buy because they let me buy keyboards without driving all the way to the manufacturer. Is Wikipedia a middle-man? Yes. But, guess what? So is a library.

I think people have a misunderstanding of libraries. Why would I recommend an article written in 1945? Maybe that is the problem. Libraries are not just brick and mortar. There are many free databases available to the public. I focus in Library 2.0 and Web 2.0. Wikipedia unfortunately increases the dumbing down of society. There is no vesting of Wikipedia (or not enough of it).

This has nothing to do with the Best Buy reference. This is more like going to a garage sale. Sometimes you find gems!

 

[chatvite]

It's all about understanding information retrieval systems. An RSS aggregator will give you more relevant information if you plug in reliable and valid sources. Just one example.

 

[Fukyo]

The whole point of wikipedia is accessibility of general information to the layman. You may be a librarian but not everyone is.

For wikipedia lovers the appeal lies in being able to have instantaneous access to multiple pieces of related information through hyperlinks embedded in the articles, having access to the ever expanding 'tree' of information. At your own personal computer, home and free of charge.

 

[chatvite]

I guess it's a bit like the "For Dummies" books. I appreciate your input. I just didn't really understand the love of Wikipedia. I guess I do now. It doesn't mean it makes sense to me, though.

 

[Amagi82]

The problem is that it lacks depth. It is a great resource to get introduced to a wide variety of topics but to dive deeper into those topics one has to explore beyond wikipedia.

When I want to look up, say, kangaroos, I don't want a 700 page document covering every single nuance of the species. I want a general overview, with specific details in interesting areas. Wikipedia is not designed to be a resource for people writing their doctoral thesis- it's meant to give you a solid, basic understanding of a topic. If anything, Wikipedia offers too much information on a lot of its subjects- it could be made more concise. If I get bored reading the article, it's probably too long and contains too much unnecessary data.

 

[chatvite]

When I want to look up, say, kangaroos, I don't want a 700 page document covering every single nuance of the species. I want a general overview, with specific details in interesting areas.

An easy search of kangaroo site:.edu returned this valid and reliable result:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Macropus_rufus.html

Does this work for you? Just curious. I am really trying to get my arms around Wikipedia.

 

[Eido]

Does this work for you? Just curious. I am really trying to get my arms around Wikipedia.

I think the implication here is that, while what you linked is full of great information, your average kangaroo information seeker doesn't need or want to know the exact kingdom-order-phylum-genus of said kangaroo.

Your "For Dummies" comparison isn't actually very far off. What you linked is relatively dense, and not as easily digestible as the equivalent Wiki article. It's the same reason why college biology programs often prefer adding a modern and more concise version of On the Origin of Species to their cirriculum instead of the original. Sure, it would be better to read the original, but also largely unnecessary. A summarized and more laymen version better suits the audience.

 

[pernoctator]

Who makes these changes and updates to Wikipedia? There is a primary source somewhere and it isn't Wikipedia.

No, there isn't "a" primary source for anything, but Wikipedia often comes close.

There is no vesting of Wikipedia (or not enough of it).

You mean vetting? What is "enough" and how did you determine that Wikipedia doesn't have it?

An easy search of kangaroo site:.edu returned this valid and reliable result:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Macropus_rufus.html

Does this work for you? Just curious. I am really trying to get my arms around Wikipedia.

Alright, now tell me how you found, or knew how to look for, animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu. Factor in that effort versus Wikipedia's learning curve. Now look at cite note #40 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo.

 

[chatvite]

Alright, now tell me how you found, or knew how to look for, animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu. Factor in that effort versus Wikipedia's learning curve. Now look at cite note #40 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo.

Type into the search box without quotes "kangaroo site:.edu"



I'm sorry, but I can't do a brain dump. This exercise has exhausted me. I really do appreciate the feedback. I guess I will crawl back into my hole.....

 

[chatvite]

FYI....here is a primer/infographic on how to get more out of Google. I hope you enjoy it!

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2012/02...nologyNews+([Geeks+are+Sexy]+technology+news)

 

[pernoctator]

Type into the search box without quotes "kangaroo site:.edu"

Yes, I saw that, but I mean how do you choose the "correct" site? What do you do when a .edu search doesn't include it? And so on. Again, Google results are machine-sorted; Wikipedia is a central compilation of results deemed reliable by an ongoing human-based sorting process. And following citations on Wikipedia leads you to the .edu page anyway, as well as many other sources.

I always use Google, and I know how to effectively use filters like site: etc., but I won't actively bypass Wikipedia which is what you seem to be advocating. It's far too convenient.

 

[pernoctator]

FYI....here is a primer/infographic on how to get more out of Google. I hope you enjoy it!

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2012/02...nologyNews+([Geeks+are+Sexy]+technology+news)

It seems like the ~ option is default now, which is really annoying if I want something specific, I have to put quotes around each word.

 

[xbox]

because wikipedia'ing it is easier than flipping through an encyclopedia

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What features?

They've already been mentioned but..:
Conciseness
Instantaneity
Availability
A comprehensive database

And unique entries like information on discographies, or other things that haven't been or don't get published.

There's no reason to be ignorant of what librarians (good ones, I should say) can provide.

I brought that point up because you really seemed to be against its use. There was never a question of wikipedia users being against libraries(or what good librarians could provide; do you mean yourself? ).

I'm curious why you feel overlooked, as a librarian, since tons of people still utilize libraries.

 

[pernoctator]

Unfortunately, tons of people don't. They turn to the Internet (which I have no problem with), but there is so much misinformation out there and the majority of people do not know how to sift through it. Wikipedia is just the same. Yes, there are some great sources you can find through Wikipedia, but there is also a lot of misinformation. It only adds to the mass dumbing down if society.

You act as though misinformation doesn't exist in libraries. Do you have any facts to support your assumptions? Wikipedia has been tested for accuracy and measures up to similarly flawed "reliable" academic sources.

The dumbing down of society is always there. The difference with Wikipedia is that it can be fought in real-time by contributing to it, as many universities are doing. With static sources, the only option is to wait for the next revision.

 

[Minuend]

I think wiki actually lessens the dumbing down. Information is now easily available to anyone with a quick search. This lowers the bar to actually check something out.

And there is a lot of outdated information in other sources as well. Wiki is maintained by experts in various fields as well as "normal" people. If you are dependent on accurate information, then it would be wise to check several sources regardless.

 

[Fukyo]

Interesting article on the credibility of Wikipedia.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_credibility_wikipedia.htm

Are you kidding me? Is this what you call a credible academic resource? That's an opinion article, and a very biased one at that, it's slander. The author calls wikipedia contributors ultra liberals and illiterate drug addicts (wtf?) and implies they are all kids, poses one case of what is most likely vandalism of an article to prove his point. It even has a covert ad for Encyclopedia Britannica in there, ffs. There's even a whole paragraph about annihilating internet anonymity and Google conspiracies.


"Remember, Wikipedia is used by criminals as well."

A bs ad-hominem if I ever saw one. Wikipedia "routinely" enables criminal acts apparently, with only one case from 2005 that the author can cite.


I just can't take this seriously at all.



This is not digging deep. You clearly have a biased agenda, and are not trying to understand anything. You're just trying to push how Wikipedia is inferior to 'credible' sources.

 

[Fukyo]

I'm not trying to fight either - but that article was so blatantly bad. It undermines your point.

 

[Fukyo]

'Nough said.......

Which means...what?

 

[Kuu]

There are plenty of extremely unreliable and inaccurate sources far, far, far more guilty of the dumbing down of society. "Respectable" even...

 

[MissQuote]

"trying to understand" implies that at some point one will say something along the lines of "oh, ok I see. Though I may still disagree I am now aware of where others are coming from and it makes sense when I look at it from the others perspective."

Maybe I am misinterpreting your words but there seems to be hostility and a purposeful desire to NOT understand.

 

[Eido]

Maybe I am misinterpreting your words but there seems to be hostility and a purposeful desire to NOT understand.

This pretty much sums up where this thread has gone. Information snobbery clearly distorts one's perspective.

 

[pernoctator]

Using Wikipedia to defend Wikipedia places false value on the potential credibility. Try to find outside sources that credit or discredit Wikipedia, then I will listen. I will look for some today.

I'm sorry? Who used Wikipedia to defend Wikipedia and when? Did you even click my links? Only one of them goes to Wikipedia, and that's because the purpose of that page is for universities to register their projects. The documents about credibility findings came from BBC news and the original source (nature.com) respectively.

Interesting article on the credibility of Wikipedia.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_credibility_wikipedia.htm

... I hope you found this source on your off-hours, Mr. Librarian.

 

[chatvite]

Well, it appears that no one really reads what I post. As you can see above, I posted that article as a satire on credibility. I said it didn't have any credibility - it was just funny (interesting). Also, many of my comments have gone unnoticed or have been twisted out of proportion. I just wanted some rationale as to why people used Wikipedia and it turned into an attack on the question. I am done with this. I am tired of the hostility. As I have said before, I appreciate your comments, insights and opinions. I will just agree to disagree. Thank you to those with real insight.

... I hope you found this source on your off-hours, Mr. Librarian.

I'm a Mrs.

 

[pernoctator]

I posted that article as a satire on credibility.

When I give you actual credible sources defending Wikipedia's reliability, and you respond with a non-credible source with a counter-argument and criticize me for "using Wikipedia to defend Wikipedia", it doesn't look like satire; it looks more like you're being extremely biased and not paying attention to me.

I just wanted some rationale as to why people used Wikipedia and it turned into an attack on the question.

It's not an attack on the question, it's a defense of your attack on Wikipedia. I'm not anti-library or anything, and I don't think anyone else who posted is either. On the other hand, you certainly seem anti-Wikipedia. When you say things like "never use Wikipedia ever" and "Wikipedia is dumbing down society", you should expect a proportionate response.

 

[Fukyo]

Well, it appears that no one really reads what I post. As you can see above, I posted that article as a satire on credibility. I said it didn't have any credibility - it was just funny (interesting).

Interesting isn't synonymous with funny, and I'd assume a librarian would know that. You're doing the well known "I was just joking but you guys didn't get it" cop out, and besides that there was nothing to indicate you were being satirical, it was more like you were trying to pass the article under people's radars in an inconspicuous way.

But whatever - I don't really intend to pursue the argument.

 

[Eido]

It's not an attack on the question, it's a defense of your attack on Wikipedia. I'm not anti-library or anything, and I don't think anyone else who posted is either. On the other hand, you certainly seem anti-Wikipedia. When you say things like "never use Wikipedia ever" and "Wikipedia is dumbing down society", you should expect a proportionate response.

Agreed. I can't speak for everyone, but there's is no hostility meant on my part. You wanted to know why people like Wikipedia, but you aren't satisfied with the answer, and, judging from your responses, I don't think you would be satisfied with any answer.

 

[Marcel]

Robert Musil, The Man Without Qualities

PIERRE BAYARD: If The Man Without Qualities brings up the problem of how cultural literacy intersects with the infinite, it also presents a possible solution, one adopted by the librarian helping General Stumm. This librarian has found a way to orient himself among the millions of volumes in his library, if not among all the books in the world. His technique is extraordinary in its simplicity:

"When I didn't let go of him he suddenly pulled himself up, rearing up in those wobbly pants of his, and said in a slow, very emphatic way, as though the time had come to give away the ultimate secret: 'General,' he said, 'if you want to know how I know about every book here, I can tell you! Because I never read any of them.'"

The general is astonished by this unusual librarian, who vigilantly avoids reading not for any want of culture, but, on the contrary, in order to better know his books:

"It was almost too much, I tell you! But when he saw how stunned I was, he explained himself.

'The secret of a good librarian is that he never reads anything more of the literature in his charge than the titles and the table of contents. Anyone who lets himself go and starts reading a book is lost as a librarian,' he explained. 'He's bound to lose perspective.'

'So,' I said, trying to catch my breath, 'you never read a single book?'

'Never. Only the catalogs.'

'But aren't you a Ph.D.?'

'Certainly I am. I teach at the university, as a special lecturer in Library Science. Library Science is a special field leading to a degree, you know," he explained. "How many systems do you suppose there are, General, for the arrangement and preservation of books, cataloging of titles, correcting misprints and misinformation on title pages, and the like?'"

Let's say I am editing a translated oral history text that mentions a referendum in Poland which was called Trzy razy tak (Three times yes). The Google search lists the English and the Polish Wikipedia articles about the People's Referendum (1946) which explain the context, the questions of the referendum and the result. The articles offer some links and monographs, among them a book about the referendum from 2000 with 399 pages.

WorldCat shows me that the national library which is twelve miles away has that book, but I am in a hurry and not interested in details. The Google search takes about three seconds, and the information offered seems sufficient. Then I move to the next problem, perhaps the activities of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army during WWII.

Of course Wikipedia is no match for books and learned journals, and of course Wikipedia is full of mistakes, and we do our best to reduce the number of mistakes. But is an interesting experiment which is even useful.

We have dirty water and dirty dishcloths, and yet we manage to get the plates and glasses clean. (Niels Bohr)

 

[mrrhq]

I think of Wikipedia more and more as a helpful online resource and a wonderful foundation. To be more specific, they are part of the Wikimedia foundation, which has full of various open source projects, such as Wikimedia itself, which allows people to create an encyclopedia of their own for various fan-bases or broad subjects that Wikipedia would not cover in detail, such as board games, anime or video games. They also have WikiBooks and Wiktionary, which I actually use if I get the chance. It's meant to help all of society increase their understanding on particular subjects.

It's not a written down, stupid hard copy encyclopedia of various things. Have you seen how big those damn things can get in libraries? And as such, that means it can have a wider array of content (expandable). You can't really expand a fixed-size book, can you? And it's fully user contributed, by millions worldwide.

The reason why schools suggest not to use Wikipedia are for both right and wrong reasons. The first right reason is that Wikipedia articles can be very volatile and can easily be corrected or changed over time, unless the page has been locked or featured. These pages are very rarely ever changed, and they can't be changed by just normal users if they're locked. Moderators will (hopefully temporarily) block IP addresses and usernames of anyone that tries to spam or deface Wikipedia pages or does any other wrongful activity.

And they are right, unlocked Wikipedia articles can be changed at any time, someone can ruin the factual information by temporarily putting false information on a Wikipedia page or using terms that are not "Wikipedia friendly" such as weasel words. Avoid stubs and pages that say will require cleanup whenever you can. Sometimes Wikipedia can cause a student to get a really bad grade, or maybe it was information that was never looked over quite yet. But moderators usually know about any changes to pages they are assigned to, and there are thousands of people who read Wikipedia pages every day. If you click on the view history tab, changes to pages can easily be viewed and reverted just like the fashion of diff files on UNIX/Linux. Moderatiors probably know everything that goes on. There are these "Special pages" on Wikipedia that show all changes in all sorts of categories for all to see, I think.

And finally the most wrong reason for teachers not to like using Wikipedia is because they are fearful of how it works. This is utter grime right here. It basically means the teacher is talking about what he/she thinks about Wikipedia instead of how Wikipedia actually works. This hurts the Wikipedia community when people teach others to stay away from it. It's true, a lot of people don't know how Wikipedia works, and how everything is verified! Yes, there are things in Wikipedia called citations, which are scrutinizingly verified by all users of Wikipedia to make sure the citation links all stay the same, even after the page is complete. Teachers who don't understand this need to just die.

Well, anyway, that concludes my thoughts and ideas.

One more thing though, I can't say I've ever donated any money to the WF, but I sure as hell hate it when there's that little box at the top that pops up and asks me for my money so often, even when I've helped write a few articles on there myself. Oh well, such is life.

 

[own8ge]

open source knowledge

 

[charliepoo]

Convenience. That and the long string keywords (resources) to research at the end of all the articles.

 

[PaulMaster]

Its quick and easy.

Anyone mention that yet?

 

[Brontosaurie]

It has a catchy name. I think the site looks rather okay.