UWS Wikipedia entry got defaced (1 Viewer)

[donnytuco]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Western_Sydney

I bet some douchebag from this forum did it.

 

[circusmind]

You could just man up and revert it if it bothers you so much.

 

[Optophobia]

You could just man up and revert it if it bothers you so much.

Or you could man up and revert it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Or you could all not care.

 

[LaraB]

pfft

why do people care what wikipedia says?

It's like the encyclopedia of random facts for people too stupid/lazy to find out the real facts...

There's a reason why it is absolutely unacceptable for any uni work - it's crap. If someone sad enough to, is able to change the wiki entry it just shows what a piece of crap it is

 

[Optophobia]

Wikipedia is not behind *real* encyclopedias.

They conducted a study expecting to find that Wikipedia would be poor, but there wasn't too much disparity between the quality.

It makes sense, as wikipedia has thousands of people across the globe contributing their expertise (or lack of), whilst britannica is restricted to a room of people.

Go to Britannica and type in "Hearsay". NO results.
Go to Wikipedia and type in "Hearsay". BINGO!

Anything off the internet full-stop has a low standing in the academic community at the moment. Time will change this obviously.

 

[UWS-Uni-Student]

Anything off the internet full-stop has a low standing in the academic community at the moment. Time will change this obviously.

Except for Google Scholar and electronic resources

 

[UWS-Uni-Student]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Western_Sydney

I bet some douchebag from this forum did it.

What part is defaced?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

why do people care what wikipedia says?

It's like the encyclopedia of random facts for people too stupid/lazy to find out the real facts...

There's a reason why it is absolutely unacceptable for any uni work - it's crap. If someone sad enough to, is able to change the wiki entry it just shows what a piece of crap it is

This applies to any encyclopedia.

 

[circusmind]

Or you could man up and revert it.

I did actually, before I posted.

 

[LaraB]

This applies to any encyclopedia.

no it doesn't.

Wikipedia is different because any old idiot can edit it and any dumb arse can write the entry to start with.

Real encyclopedia's are different, ,especially in terms of not being able to be edited by whoever feels like editing it.

 

[LaraB]

Wikipedia is not behind *real* encyclopedias.

They conducted a study expecting to find that Wikipedia would be poor, but there wasn't too much disparity between the quality.

It makes sense, as wikipedia has thousands of people across the globe contributing their expertise (or lack of), whilst britannica is restricted to a room of people.

Go to Britannica and type in "Hearsay". NO results.
Go to Wikipedia and type in "Hearsay". BINGO!

Anything off the internet full-stop has a low standing in the academic community at the moment. Time will change this obviously.

The fact that Wiki covers hearsay proves nothing. Likewise, your analogy is poor... even if britannica was written by a room of people exclusively (which it is not), this does not make it's content less valid. That's just like saying that a bunch of random people's opinions on a legal case are more valid than the court decision because the court is just a room of people but the others are a broader source - considering you mention the opinion of the academic community, you present a poor understanding of source validity...

It is not the fact that it is on the internet that makes it carry less validity - it is the fact that you don't know who creates the entries or who edits them, and that very often they are just plain wrong. The internet has plenty of academically recognised sources - lots of academics and companies release publications via the internet rather than wasting paper printing copious copies and to enable more free access, as do a lot of research communities and lobbyists etc. A lot of the recognised encyclopedias are available online too so it has nothin to do with the medium it comes in.

Considering you are not a member of the acdemic community, I'd much rather believe the opinion of every academic lecturer/tutor i have ever had as far as wiki goes, than you. I have never encountered a lecturer, academic or professional who was of the view that wikipedia was even close in usefulness and validity to the "real" encyclopedias.

 

[LaraB]

Except for Google Scholar and electronic resources

Google scholar is not considered an academic resource, fyi, in case you planned on using it for an assignment or something.

Some lecturers say it's a good starting point - BUT it's a starting point to get the titles of reputable articles, they don't consider it an accurate source in itself. It's kind of useful as a sort of index to other sources i guess

 

[wheredanton]

The fact that Wiki covers hearsay proves nothing. Likewise, your analogy is poor... even if britannica was written by a room of people exclusively (which it is not), this does not make it's content less valid. That's just like saying that a bunch of random people's opinions on a legal case are more valid than the court decision because the court is just a room of people but the others are a broader source - considering you mention the opinion of the academic community, you present a poor understanding of source validity...

It is not the fact that it is on the internet that makes it carry less validity - it is the fact that you don't know who creates the entries or who edits them, and that very often they are just plain wrong. The internet has plenty of academically recognised sources - lots of academics and companies release publications via the internet rather than wasting paper printing copious copies and to enable more free access, as do a lot of research communities and lobbyists etc. A lot of the recognised encyclopedias are available online too so it has nothin to do with the medium it comes in.

Considering you are not a member of the acdemic community, I'd much rather believe the opinion of every academic lecturer/tutor i have ever had as far as wiki goes, than you. I have never encountered a lecturer, academic or professional who was of the view that wikipedia was even close in usefulness and validity to the "real" encyclopedias.

This is one of the first ever posts I've come across by LaraB that is readable! Keep it up!

People use wiki because its fast and dirty. No one should take it as the ultimate authority on anything. Especially, any article that allows the writer to indulge in comment/opinion. However, high traffic articles that have alot of people involved in them are often pretty good, as are factual articles about the technicals of jets, cars etc. These pages often do not allow opinionated indulgence. For example wiki is good for finding out that the lexus is250 uses a Toyota GR engine '4GR-FSE' and that the C-9 is military version of the 747.

 

[kerfuffle]

What part is defaced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Western_Sydney&oldid=118234143
Wherever it said university, they replaced it with 'Tafe', and changed the Campbelltown campus section to 'moonlight campus'. -_-" Obviously someone who has too much time on their hands; they seem to have defaced other Wikipedia articles, too.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

no it doesn't.

Wikipedia is different because any old idiot can edit it and any dumb arse can write the entry to start with.

Real encyclopedia's are different, ,especially in terms of not being able to be edited by whoever feels like editing it.

Wikipedia has a dispute resolution system in place whereby where there are conflicts (or claims of inaccuracy) it will be the person who can back up their claims with peer reviewed articles who comes out on top. There's been alot of research into this (I did an assignment recently) which is fairly positive for wikipedia, of course it doesn't perform quite as well as other encyclopedias but it is close. Of course there's constant trolling, but for the most part this is dealt with fairly quickly (though there are some more extreme examples, these are the minority).

For me, one benefit of wikipedia is to give you a general idea (like an encylopedia) - however its greatest benefit (which imo makes it superior to encyclopedias) is the hyperlinking to the original source articles for various claims.

I'd never reference an encylopedia or wikipedia in a university level essay but by the same token I'd wager the ability of someone with a good understanding of wikipedia using a good wikipedia article to get greater information on the topic, faster, than someone with equal ability with a good encyclopedia. This is because of the hyperlinking both to other wikipedia articles and to outside peer reviewed sources.

I have never encountered a lecturer, academic or professional who was of the view that wikipedia was even close in usefulness and validity to the "real" encyclopedias.

Alot of these people, i'd argue, misunderstand wikipedia. People go on there, see they can edit a page and assume from that much that it's flimsy. Little do they realise (even in fairly obscure articles) it won't take long before it's reverted back to its previous form and possibly you're banned.

---------------

This isn't to say there aren't many examples where someone merely copying wikipedia will fall foul. I edit alot of articles dealing with claims of paranormal powers and it's amazing the way people will twist studies to give the appearance of a positive result where there isn't one. The point is though, even in those articles... you've got the peer reviewed articles at your fingertips to get the bigger picture.

 

[circusmind]

Bla bla bla bla bla

Wikipedia > any other source when what you need is a basic introduction to any given topic. You wouldn't cite it, and you wouldn't take its info as gospel, but then you wouldn't do either of those things with a print encyclopedia either.

For me, one benefit of wikipedia is to give you a general idea (like an encylopedia) - however its greatest benefit (which imo makes it superior to encyclopedias) is the hyperlinking to the original source articles for various claims.

Exactly. I found it awesomely useful in Extension History and English, because articles about postmodernism, intentionalism, structuralism etc. neatly summarised various academic opinions with citations to original sources. You'd never find that level of academic depth in an encyclopedia.

 

[UWS-Uni-Student]

Google scholar is not considered an academic resource, fyi, in case you planned on using it for an assignment or something.

Some lecturers say it's a good starting point - BUT it's a starting point to get the titles of reputable articles, they don't consider it an accurate source in itself. It's kind of useful as a sort of index to other sources i guess

Well what I meant was that the articles that google scholar finds are mostly academic, google scholar itself holds no information as it is merely a search engine.

 

[Optophobia]

Does anybody know how to lock the article so that it can only be edited by people with accounts?

It was defaced again, this time by someone on Bigpond.

 

[Bacilli]

What part is defaced?

"It is considered by many a leading university."