Wikipedia BAD!!

wolf,

you just said that you were bashed by jillio "for those wikis" which leads me to believe that YOU were the one who posted them -- not jillio. if anything, i tend to believe that jillio "bashed" you for citing wiki in the first place.
 
typeingtornado,

if you can find any of jillio's posts that quote wiki, let me know, but i highly doubt you will. if i am wrong about this, i will eat my words.
 
Hear Again said:
wolf,

you just said that you were bashed by jillio "for those wikis" which leads me to believe that YOU were the one who posted them -- not jillio. if anything, i tend to believe that jillio "bashed" you for citing wiki in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ahem.

I never cite anything. I always use my own source, the wolf. Think about it, do you remember what I did? I knew the wikis were rubbish. So I used my own common sense, "the wolf".
 
Hear Again - wolf's just toying with you.
 
Foxrac said:
Yup, imdeafsowhat is just pure trolling and we shouldn't feed him. :mad2:
Click to expand...

I have to admit you're right.

Anyway, jillio has never been one to use wiki as a source of info and has stated that it's not a valid one for anything regarding rigorous research.
 
That is why Wikipedia should not be an educational tool for students.
 
Wikipedia is still good for someone who need to know the basic information include the pictures to identify. That's really help. I able to know what kind fungi or animal look like.
 
PowerON said:
Wikipedia is still good for someone who need to know the basic information include the pictures to identify. That's really help. I able to know what kind fungi or animal look like.
Click to expand...

Google is the best site for searching any pictures that you want to look at.
 
We are talking about how bad Wikipedia is. It's not all bad. If you just want to look something up out of curiosity, you don't always need to go straight to the proven manual of whatever. If you want to look up an actor's name, what's the big deal if you go to Wikipedia? I agree that it's not appropriate for academic papers or anything like that, but I don't see the big deal if you link someone to a Wiki on something that is within the general domain of knowledge. For example, let's say you don't know who Barack Obama is. So you go on Wiki and you come across:

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki is enough to satisfy some general questions about who he is. He's the 44th and current president, etc. You don't necessarily need to go into the White House Archives to make sure that it is indeed reliable information. Wiki is not wholly reliable but sometimes for every day purposes you don't need the most reliable source out there. Just like you might spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment if you're a professional photographer, but if you're just an average person taking photos of your vacation you don't need the best camera out there. Likewise, if you're just an average person looking up who Obama is, you don't need the purest most reliable source out there. Wikipedia in that regard serves the purpose, just like the tourists whose $100 camera serves their need.
 
Nika said:
We are talking about how bad Wikipedia is. It's not all bad. If you just want to look something up out of curiosity, you don't always need to go straight to the proven manual of whatever. If you want to look up an actor's name, what's the big deal if you go to Wikipedia? I agree that it's not appropriate for academic papers or anything like that, but I don't see the big deal if you link someone to a Wiki on something that is within the general domain of knowledge. For example, let's say you don't know who Barack Obama is. So you go on Wiki and you come across:

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki is enough to satisfy some general questions about who he is. He's the 44th and current president, etc. You don't necessarily need to go into the White House Archives to make sure that it is indeed reliable information. Wiki is not wholly reliable but sometimes for every day purposes you don't need the most reliable source out there. Just like you might spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment if you're a professional photographer, but if you're just an average person taking photos of your vacation you don't need the best camera out there. Likewise, if you're just an average person looking up who Obama is, you don't need the purest most reliable source out there. Wikipedia in that regard serves the purpose, just like the tourists whose $100 camera serves their need.
Click to expand...

I commend you for your post, we're on the same side here but I want to point out a flaw in that analogy. It's not logical to use the photographer term for this, because the purpose of wiki is to educate people over something. The point of a photographer with the best camera is to do his job at his own best. The photographer has next to nothing over concerning how his job works with millions of people. Wiki carries that burden. It just logically is unjustifiable.

A better way to state it is from what I can see is teachers. We have K-12 teachers, college profs, master's profs, doctorate phds. The info provided along the line to them may share some common boundary, but when you want to get technical in your stuff it is commonly accepted practice that to be good at what you do, prove it with the doctor stuff. "Don't go quoting me stuff from the grade school level". Even then, some of the grade school information may be great and we have retired people in there.. it's just the legality that matters.
 
naisho said:
A better way to state it is from what I can see is teachers. We have K-12 teachers, college profs, master's profs, doctorate phds. The info provided along the line to them may share some common boundary, but when you want to get technical in your stuff it is commonly accepted practice that to be good at what you do, prove it with the doctor stuff. "Don't go quoting me stuff from the grade school level". Even then, some of the grade school information may be great and we have retired people in there.. it's just the legality that matters.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the better analogy. I agree that is a much better analogy.

Sometimes people are only looking for a grade 5 level explanation. In fact I am guilty myself of getting a bit too technical and details for some AD'ers on here. And Wiki often comes to my rescue when I don't know how to explain something without getting too technical.

There are times when a Ph.D. level explanation is appropriate, and there are times when a grade 5 level explanation is appropriate.
 
Nika said:
Thank you for the better analogy. I agree that is a much better analogy.

Sometimes people are only looking for a grade 5 level explanation. In fact I am guilty myself of getting a bit too technical and details for some AD'ers on here. And Wiki often comes to my rescue when I don't know how to explain something without getting too technical.

There are times when a Ph.D. level explanation is appropriate, and there are times when a grade 5 level explanation is appropriate.
Click to expand...

This reminds me a lot of Dreamchaser and all her insulting posts. :nono:
 
Bottesini said:
This reminds me a lot of Dreamchaser and all her insulting posts. :nono:
Click to expand...

I have no idea who that is. All I am saying is that just as you won't use Calculus to explain gravity to a classroom of 12 year olds, likewise sometimes you don't need to go to the most sophisticated source to explain something. I don't mean to talk about people's intelligence levels, but just how detailed you need to get for the purpose of an argument. I hope that makes sense. I'm by no means saying some people can only understand a grade 5 level, I just mean that sometimes you only need a grade 5 level understanding for the purpose of the discussion.
 
Back
Top