so much for Wikipedia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4695376.stm)

Blearg.

Hey, I did hear someone who reviews encyclopedia say that Wikipedia is as accurate as book form ones. So I take it the book form ones aren't perfect either.

Wiki has a good recovery system in place for vandalism. Basically they can just roll back the changes.

Also you can mark material as contested and there are links to discussions to sort it all out.

I've written some documentation using Wiki and I'm pretty impressed... even though I really HATE writing documentation.

Old news... it is quite an embarisment on the US though. Congress men and women were found "prettying" up their entries with unverfied facts and removing verified facts in order to make them look better in the public eye.

But who want that the skeletons he have in his closet become wildly know?

When they live at a time that the look is the more important thing to be elected and not what they think. Who want to be know as a flip-flop?

Eridalafar

When you think about it, we've never had the ability to spot lies and insincerity of public figures so easily as we do today. Before the Internet and CSPAN, anyone could say anything and no one would remember 6 months later. Now... everything is archived and can be replayed at will.

Its kind of great.

Old news... it is quite an embarisment on the US though. Congress men and women were found "prettying" up their entries with unverfied facts and removing verified facts in order to make them look better in the public eye.*laugh* But guice, aren't these the same people you tell us to blindly trust? Maybe they were just "correcting inaccuracies". :wiggle:

But any historical account is going to be skewed. It doesn't matter how open minded and well intentioned the writer is, there will always be some degree of inaccuracy.

I still have my leather bound gold leaf Encyclopedia Britannica from high school.

Wikipedia is much more accurate that it is.

The fact that it is editable on the fly, makes it so. And then those edits are editable on the fly, even more so.

That said, I would never use Wikipedia for a research paper. But I would use it to find usable information and references. It has its use.

LOL You gotta admit, that was a perty good political trick to do! :D

*laugh* But guice, aren't these the same people you tell us to blindly trust? Maybe they were just "correcting inaccuracies".
I never said such a thing. Pull it up where I said that. I, personally, trust people until they prove me wrong. I never said to trust blindly.

I still have my leather bound gold leaf Encyclopedia Britannica from high school.

Wikipedia is much more accurate that it is.

The fact that it is editable on the fly, makes it so. And then those edits are editable on the fly, even more so.

That said, I would never use Wikipedia for a research paper. But I would use it to find usable information and references. It has its use.
Yeah, it's a really good source for information. A study was done comparing the two. As it turns out, Britanica was still more accurate, but by a very minute margin. If I recall correctly, out of aprox 120 (or more?) articals tested randomly, Wikipedia fell aprox 16% inaccurate where Britanica fell 13%.

When comaring two articals of the same thing, odly enough, Britanica and Wikipeda both had an average of 2 mistakes.

But, like you said, it's a good resource, but don't by any means make it your authorative source.

wikipedia is great, the key is to just know its limits....

If its on general history (non controversial) then its going to be pretty accurate, maybe not as good as a good history book or whatever, but still hold it own

If its on something technical or technology related, espcially computers its going to be pretty damn great....

if its on a current event or intense political issue chances are its going to be filled with a good amount of opinion or BS...

if you notice an article takes an arguementive stance, or isnt well written, then generally speaking the information within the article probably is of similiar quality....

I use wikipedia on a regular basis, i would never use it as an authroity but to look up quick facts or to use it as a starting point to get more in depth its great

Well, I wonder how long until this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Meehan#Wikipedia) gets removed. :rolling:

I agree with Fyyr about Wikipedia. It's a good jumping off point, but never something I'd use to back up facts.

I wonder if Wikipedia made that entry Cantatus. Kind of a 'don't f*** with us' statement to other politicians who might be getting bright ideas.

Well, as long as Wikipedia cites references and the references are valid, one can use those. Wikipedia just does what any encylopedia does, conglomerate the information where it is easy to get to.