Has anyone noticed that Wikipedia is quickly becoming the #1 result for anything you google for?

[Homerboy]

while not ALL encompassing I realize, it seems that Wikipedia is #1 in SOOOO much stuff.

 

[RichUK]

*RichUK does the chicken dance*

 

[bignateyk]

Alot of times when im googling for a person/place/thing I will type

"wiki insert_name_here" just to make sure I get the wikipedia entry first.

 

[krunchykrome]

I never use wikipedia for anything. I dont even click on the links. It's not a reliable source for information. Schools completely disregard wikipedia as being a source of information for research.

 

[PingSpike]

I'd say...50% of my google searches are probably really just searches for a wikipedia article.

 

[Kirby64]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I never use wikipedia for anything. I dont even click on the links. It's not a reliable source for information. Schools completely disregard wikipedia as being a source of information for research.

THIS IS BLASPHEMY, THIS IS MADNESS!

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I never use wikipedia for anything. I dont even click on the links. It's not a reliable source for information. Schools completely disregard wikipedia as being a source of information for research.

Schools, in my experience, don't disregard wikipedia, they disregard encyclopedic resources (which wikipedia is one). I remember the multitude of times during high school that we were told to not use encyclopedic resources because "colleges won't allow them." I've ready news reports that wiki is about as accurate as your printed encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this was all articles or just scientific ones though.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I'd say...50% of my google searches are probably really just searches for a wikipedia article.

good point.
thats why I use the Wikipedia search engine in FF A TON

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I'd say...50% of my google searches are probably really just searches for a wikipedia article.

easily 75% of mine...since the Wikipedia internal search engine sucks.

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I never use wikipedia for anything. I dont even click on the links. It's not a reliable source for information. Schools completely disregard wikipedia as being a source of information for research.

Schools, in my experience, don't disregard wikipedia, they disregard encyclopedic resources (which wikipedia is one). I remember the multitude of times during high school that we were told to not use encyclopedic resources because "colleges won't allow them." I've ready news reports that wiki is about as accurate as your printed encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this was all articles or just scientific ones though.

The fact that anyone can go into wikipedia and write some BS information on any subject makes wikipedia unreliable. Regardless of whether people contribute accurate information to the website or not, it doesnt have any credibility. It amazes me how often people here on ATOT will defend a position or argument referring to a wikipedia definition.

I haven't touched or even seen an encyclopedia in maye 10 years. Resources are credible if they are scholarly journals, published, or just plain ole written by a credible source like a doctor or such. Whether or not the doctor for example is accurate with his statements is another issue, but the fact that he is a doctor makes his statement hold a certain level of credibility.

 

[Homerboy]

The fact that anyone can go into wikipedia and write some BS information on any subject makes wikipedia unreliable. Regardless of whether people contribute accurate information to the website or not, it doesnt have any credibility. It amazes me how often people here on ATOT will defend a position or argument referring to a wikipedia definition.

such ignorance

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

The fact that anyone can go into wikipedia and write some BS information on any subject makes wikipedia unreliable. Regardless of whether people contribute accurate information to the website or not, it doesnt have any credibility. It amazes me how often people here on ATOT will defend a position or argument referring to a wikipedia definition.

such ignorance

Why do you say that?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

The fact that anyone can go into wikipedia and write some BS information on any subject makes wikipedia unreliable. Regardless of whether people contribute accurate information to the website or not, it doesnt have any credibility. It amazes me how often people here on ATOT will defend a position or argument referring to a wikipedia definition.

such ignorance

Yep. All one need do is check the required REFERENCES tagged to each article for proof of it's legitimacy. If an item is not referenced, a warning appears to let the reader know that the article is in question.

 

[RichUK]

nm

 

[PingSpike]

I don't really think most people are going to subscribe to scientific journals to win arguements on ATOT. Wikipedia may not be entirely accurate, but its not like its written by a guy that keeps jars of his own urine and lives under a bridge either.

 

[herbiehancock]

But just because the article in question has references listed below it, doesn't mean that the snippet of info hasn't been doctored/corrupted by an idiot on a "I played with Wiki and messed it up good!" spree.

True, the referenced sources are nice to have.........but does not ensure any accuracy in what you see on the page, since, as has been mentioned before, it can change in a moment.

The only true way to make sure you're reading FACTUAL information is to actually refer back to those references and read the sourced material.........and I'm sure EVERYONE does that.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: herbiehancock
But just because the article in question has references listed below it, doesn't mean that the snippet of info hasn't been doctored/corrupted by an idiot on a "I played with Wiki and messed it up good!" spree.

True, the referenced sources are nice to have.........but does not ensure any accuracy in what you see on the page, since, as has been mentioned before, it can change in a moment.

The only true way to make sure you're reading FACTUAL information is to actually refer back to those references and read the sourced material.........and I'm sure EVERYONE does that.

Actually, I click on references all the time. An encyclopedia is only a gateway to deeper reading on a subject.

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't really think most people are going to subscribe to scientific journals to win arguements on ATOT. Wikipedia may not be entirely accurate, but its not like its written by a guy that keeps jars of his own urine and lives under a bridge either.

I agree with you. I'd bet most of the stuff written on wikipedia is probably accurate; but that doesnt make it credible. And referring to wikipedia makes people look like an a$$ IMO.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't really think most people are going to subscribe to scientific journals to win arguements on ATOT. Wikipedia may not be entirely accurate, but its not like its written by a guy that keeps jars of his own urine and lives under a bridge either.

I agree with you. I'd bet most of the stuff written on wikipedia is probably accurate; but that doesnt make it credible. And referring to wikipedia makes people look like an a$$ IMO.

I will use it as a reference if the references in the article are accurate. I will also use it as a gateway to the references.

So you can call me an ass if you like, but I have the ability to check my references to ensure they are accurate.

 

[Homerboy]

ya! Thread hijacked!

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't really think most people are going to subscribe to scientific journals to win arguements on ATOT. Wikipedia may not be entirely accurate, but its not like its written by a guy that keeps jars of his own urine and lives under a bridge either.

I agree with you. I'd bet most of the stuff written on wikipedia is probably accurate; but that doesnt make it credible. And referring to wikipedia makes people look like an a$$ IMO.

I will use it as a reference if the references in the article are accurate. I will also use it as a gateway to the references.

So you can call me an ass if you like, but I have the ability to check my references to ensure they are accurate.

If you want to take that route, then thats great, and wikipedia might work for you. But I really don't think most people will back track and follow up on the wikipedia information to make sure that it's accurate.

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: Kirby64

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I never use wikipedia for anything. I dont even click on the links. It's not a reliable source for information. Schools completely disregard wikipedia as being a source of information for research.

THIS IS BLASPHEMY, THIS IS MADNESS!

NO, THIS IS WIKIPEDIA

 

[z0mb13]

wikipedia is friggin banned in China

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I never use wikipedia for anything. I dont even click on the links. It's not a reliable source for information. Schools completely disregard wikipedia as being a source of information for research.

That's more because you shouldn't be using an encyclopedia as a source for research beyond the 6th grade.

It is reasonably accurate, and you can generally tell when someone has posted dubious information (as can Wikipedia editors, hence the liberal use of the "citation needed" tag)

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I'd say...50% of my google searches are probably really just searches for a wikipedia article.

I usually append the word wikipedia to my search when I do that - i.e. "anandtech wikipedia".

Google search > MediaWiki search.