wikipedia versus britannica (1 Viewer)

[ybnormal]

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

being my petty little self im happy theres now some form of proof
always argued to my teachers wiki was just as good as other sources

happy happy happy

show to all unbeleiving teachers/ librarians!!!

 

[cl3nta]

haha nice

 

[Stott Despoja]

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

being my petty little self im happy theres now some form of proof
always argued to my teachers wiki was just as good as other sources

happy happy happy

show to all unbeleiving teachers/ librarians!!!

A comparison of relatively simple science-based entries in no way suggests that the Wikipedia is 'just as good as other sources.' For starters, what are the other sources to which you refer? For example, in what way is the Wikipedia on par with the appropriate textbook, particularly in terms of academic credibility? Also, what may one say about comparisons between the Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica when it comes to non-science issues? In what way does the supposed reliability of the Wikipedia when it comes to science suggest that it's just as strong as the Britannica when it comes to history, politics and civics, etc.?

The fact of the matter is that the Wikipedia isn't an appropriate resource for secondary students (let alone tertiary students) who are in need of a scholastic resource and something to reference. The nature of the referencing system alone more than illustrates just how inappropriate the Wikipedia is in a scholastic context (who created the page, what are their credentials, when was it last updated, can the version accessed by the student be readily accessed by the teacher at a later date, etc.).

For the most part the Wikipedia is a useful entry-level resource, and in this it is somewhat like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but that isn't to say that it's a valid classroom tool.

 

[HotShot]

Wikipedia is pretty much a blog - its offers more in a sense subjective stuff rather than objective and where it offers objective information it is basically copied from elsewhere (from primary a source).

There is no credibility with Wikipedia - its a free service open for anyone to edit at anytime.

SO if it happens one night you look it up but an hour before some yr 2 student edited some stuff - and the information is completely wrong. You view that night and you have exposed to some shit.

On the other hand you have Britannica or some other paid encylpedias that have restricted access. While their information maybe sometimes inaccurate its definetly more reliable than Wikipedia. Its a controlled environment - the fact that users pay means that quality of the information has to be to a standard otherwise the users have the power to blame and put fault to the company.

 

[wagga]

Conservapedia ftw! Now they put a warning at the top of it:
"

Minors under 16 years use this site.

* Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470.
* Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. We will trace your IP address and give it to authorities if necessary."

and on the Kangaroo: "Also according to creation science theories, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[2] -- as Australia was still for a time connected to Europe by a land bridge similar to the one that connected Asia to America[3] -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.[2] Another theory is that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there. " - floated on mats of vegetation - right...

 

[Serius]

wikipedia is good for secondary students, but for uni you should only use it to get a general idea and then move on to more advanced sources like journal articles.

Its generally pretty reliable and its fairly easy to tell when an article has been vandalised. The fact that most of the articles are written by proffesionals in the field says alot.

 

[ybnormal]

In relation to several peoples replies:

wikipedia is an excellent research tool used cautiously and in conjunction with other research tools. Indeed, this is much the same as the majority of research materials.
the point on textbooks, textbooks do not gurantee accuracy. The physics syllabus from the board of studies contains many inaacuracies (though over the years these have mostly been ironed out). how can the text book based on the board of studies dot points possibly be accurate when the dot pointsa themselves are inaccurate?
just a definite example of how a text book can be inaccurate.

oh, i discovered today my modern text book gives three different amount of time of hitler being in jail after the 1923 munich putsch

 

[HotShot]

Conservapedia ftw! Now they put a warning at the top of it:
"

Minors under 16 years use this site.

* Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470.
* Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. We will trace your IP address and give it to authorities if necessary."

and on the Kangaroo: "Also according to creation science theories, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[2] -- as Australia was still for a time connected to Europe by a land bridge similar to the one that connected Asia to America[3] -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.[2] Another theory is that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there. " - floated on mats of vegetation - right...

I cant believe this shit.

Type in Evolution or theory of Evolution and just scroll down look at the sources:
* Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1996 [104][105]
* Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [106](Free online version)
* Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Master Books, 1999 [107](Free online version)
* R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy.[108][109]
* Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 [110][111]
* R. C. Sproul, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology, Baker Book House: 1994 [112][113]

LOL.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

For the most part the Wikipedia is a useful entry-level resource, and in this it is somewhat like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but that isn't to say that it's a valid classroom tool.

Yea I recently did a debate on this where for the most part I vigorously defended wikipedia, but I had to point out the importance of going to the peer-reviewed articles. Wikipedia is as good as EB (basically) imo, but people need to understand proper research techniques - They don't. Schools should mandatorily fail students who cite encyclopedias from year 11...

I sometimes use wikipedia by just reading the article to get a rough idea and checking out the citations (alot of these are genuinely good) or looking them through the universities' online databases.

 

[The_highwayman]

i use it for the same reason as NTB, but i would never take it's word as 'gospel'.

 

[bazookajoe]

Pfft.

Anyone consideringg using wiki at all is an idiot.

Wow, talk about a bitter post. Wikipedia is excellent for giving a general overview of a topic/event, but as already said by a few people, don't base your whole argument on their articles.

 

[simonloo]

Wikipedia has entries on over 50 sex positions and therefore wins.