Wikipedia BAD!!

naisho said:
When they debate about stuff like abortion, Israeli conflict, sociological/psychological effects of people and things, stuff that can get heated fast - the pros don't like it when you have to cite the source from an entry level background. This is modern debating.

It's "if you can keep up with the heat, do it with the right sources, or if you can't keep up, then stay out." arguments going around. Wiki's just good for digging up your (possibly incorrect) information to get started, but to argue back when they've got something with more credibility - this is where the hot spot is at.
Click to expand...

And I have seen that happen here on AD too often which has led to flame wars. If one wants to be taken seriously, use more credible sources.
 
i already knew this was true, but i did a search of jillio's posts and never found an instance where she quoted wiki.
 
dreama said:
I wonder why everyone is so anti Wiki. Ok their are errors. There are errors in books. Their are even errors in the accademic stuff too.

I don't see Wiki as any worse then other sources.
Click to expand...

Liebling:-))) said:
If you feel Wiki is right for you then stick with it...

Remember, no source, published books/magazines/newspapers etc are 100% perfect.

I use wikipedia sometimes and also check the sources in the wikipedia to find out. I noticed that wikipedia gave accurate information mostly than other sources.

Wikipedia is extremely useful if you know how to use it properly. Example about profile, histories, etc. I has to admit that wikipedia is a brilliant first source for information.
Click to expand...

Liebling:-))) said:
Yes, I agree with you on this.
Click to expand...

no. and no. and no.
 
wiki is a poor man's version of research -- unsubstantiated with alot of inaccurate information.
 
Wikipedia may have got a bad rap over the years due to unpredictable references but nevertheless, I think it shouldn't be devalued because it still has some excellent information out there for someone who wants to get a glimpse of whatever they want to know about.

As we all know, not every sources out there are creditable too. We just have to make sure it has the correct information before using it to support your argument or debate.

Also by refuting to it, It will help bring some light to the statement.
 
Hear Again said:
nika,

jillio asked me to pass along a message from her. she said the reason dsm info taken from wiki becomes less reliable is because the information is out of context and incomplete.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering my question.
 
if wiki can generate stronger sources to back up the information they provide, perhaps more people would look at them in a positive light when it comes to conducting cold, hard research.
 
Jolie77 said:
Wikipedia may have got a bad rap over the years due to unpredictable references but nevertheless, I think it shouldn't be devalued because it still has some excellent information out there for someone who wants to get a glimpse of whatever they want to know about.
Click to expand...

That's all I'm saying as well. Is that yes there are times when it's inappropriate, but there are times where it also serves its purpose. Some people become very absolutist and don't even quote Wikipedia to look up an actor's biography or to look up something for an online forum. Since these are just online forums here, and we're not doing frontline research, I think it's okay to use Wiki. I don't see the point in having a "never used Wiki" tracked record for something like AD forums.

I am not suggesting that Wiki is appropriate for research papers, or for anything for formal and academic. I am just saying that it is the commoner's first source. I'm just trying to put Wikipedia under a more balanced light.

And it's true--all sources should be questionable. Of course there are different degrees of accuracy, and some sources should be questioned more readily than others. But in the end, all sources should be questioned.
 
Hear Again said:
i already knew this was true, but i did a search of jillio's posts and never found an instance where she quoted wiki.
Click to expand...

Nods. On the other hand you'll find quotes from jillio advising against using Wiki as source of infromation. Here's one such quote:

I'm quoting jillio in post #4 here.
Humphries has most often been credited with defining the distinction. And, I'd use a source other than Wiki, as well, if I truly wanted an accurrate answer.
Click to expand...
at this url.
 
deafskeptic said:
Nods. On the other hand you'll find quotes from jillio advising against using Wiki as source of infromation. Here's one such quote:

I'm quoting jillio in post #4 here.
at this url.
Click to expand...

thank you for pointing that out, deafskeptic. as lucia and i have said, it seems highly unusual (impossible, in fact) that jillio would condone the use of wiki for backing up one's statement in order to substantiate a claim. it just isn't done in the field of mental health since there are far more credible resources out there like the psychiatric times.
 
Nika said:
That's all I'm saying as well. Is that yes there are times when it's inappropriate, but there are times where it also serves its purpose. Some people become very absolutist and don't even quote Wikipedia to look up an actor's biography or to look up something for an online forum. Since these are just online forums here, and we're not doing frontline research, I think it's okay to use Wiki. I don't see the point in having a "never used Wiki" tracked record for something like AD forums.

I am not suggesting that Wiki is appropriate for research papers, or for anything for formal and academic. I am just saying that it is the commoner's first source. I'm just trying to put Wikipedia under a more balanced light.

And it's true--all sources should be questionable. Of course there are different degrees of accuracy, and some sources should be questioned more readily than others. But in the end, all sources should be questioned.
Click to expand...

Yeah, It's all about how you can balance it by using it as a source or whatanot.

I'm fine with using Wiki but if you wanted to make your statement to have a stronger point then it would be wise to use multiple sources. Hey, It's better having several sources than one to bring the whole picture in this.

What I have learned is - If you want to bring your point across the table then you have to know what you know coming into the discussion because if you don't know what you know, it can and will be torn apart due to the creditability of what you know or don't know.
 
Hear Again said:
why do that when many journals and periodicals are already available online?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure but most of them you have to pay for a subscription. I can access a lot of online journals through my university website for free, though. However I do have to log in as a student at the university in order to access them. I rely completely on the e-Library (online library) since the university library doesn't have any sources in large print, braille, or audio.

And yes I agree that Wiki should be more readily questioned than sources like the Psychiatric Times. I wasn't disagreeing with you on that front--I was just trying to provide a more balanced view of Wikipedia. <smile>
 
Nika said:
I'm not sure but most of them you have to pay for a subscription.
Click to expand...

if you know where to look, you don't have to pay for them. for example, there are a variety of websites such as http://www.schizophrenia.com and http://www.furiousseasons.com that quote current research studies which appear in psychiatric journals. one does not necessarily have to go to the source when it comes to the latter.
 
Hear Again said:
why do that when many journals and periodicals are already available online?
Click to expand...

To save taxpayers' money :|

You see why the books never change but information online will always change. You see why research on the books can give you some confident and pure knowledge.

Maybe in ten years, schools might ask students to research on the books instead Internet. Who knows :hmm:
 
Aghori said:
You see why the books never change but information online will always change. You see why research on the books can give you some confident and pure knowledge.
Click to expand...

the fact that information online changes frequently is a good thing because it means that it tends to be more up-to-date than publications which are in print hardcopy.
 
Back
Top