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

[smack Down]

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.

Who cares it if is credible, most of the time it doesn't really matter that much.

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: smack Down

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.

Who cares it if is credible, most of the time it doesn't really matter that much.

You care if it's credible when you have a paper to write and you need to list credible resources.

 

[krunchykrome]

Then again, I search for information right here on ATOT and I trust in most of the information provided here from the forum members.

I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

 

[TallBill]

Wikipedia has such little information on any topic that its not really worth it.

 

[mugs]

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 think most of the time people use Wikipedia to back themselves up, it's information they knew to be true without Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is just the easiest source to reference. Sorry, but it's difficult to post a link to the page in a book that I read the information in BEFORE I saw it on Wikipedia.

Personal example - in a discussion on AT about whether "jew" is an ethnicity, I posted Wikipedia articles to defend my position and I was attacked for using Wikipedia as a source. Well, I couldn't exactly post a link to my jr. high social studies book that taught me what an ethnicity is.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: smack Down

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.

Who cares it if is credible, most of the time it doesn't really matter that much.

You care if it's credible when you have a paper to write and you need to list credible resources.

Anyone who uses wikipedia for a paper is an idiot.
Wikipedia is a useful one-stop shop overview site, but nothing more. IMO it should, for the most part, be considered for light internet debate, but never for proper work.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Wikipedia has such little information on any topic that its not really worth it.

that is simply not true

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Wikipedia has such little information on any topic that its not really worth it.

Wait - what? For an encyclopedia, the amount of information it has on most sources borders on excessive. There's no way you would find the amount of information on Wikipedia in a print encyclopedia. There are many articles that are just stubs, but most of those are articles that you wouldn't even find in a print encyclopedia.

 

[waggy]

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.

yeap its a good place to start and referance.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: smack Down

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.

Who cares it if is credible, most of the time it doesn't really matter that much.

You care if it's credible when you have a paper to write and you need to list credible resources.

Well then read the wiki article find the information you want in one nice easy to use place, then go find credible sources.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: TallBill
Wikipedia has such little information on any topic that its not really worth it.

Wait - what? For an encyclopedia, the amount of information it has on most sources borders on excessive. There's no way you would find the amount of information on Wikipedia in a print encyclopedia. There are many articles that are just stubs, but most of those are articles that you wouldn't even find in a print encyclopedia.

ding ding

 

[LS20]

i dont mind, because wiki results are nicer than any other

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: 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.

You prefer the other results Google turns up?

Here is the #2 result for "creationism", after Wikipedia. http://www.creationism.org/

Real credible.

 

[spaceman]

wikipedia is the no 1. result.
or should i say....consequence!

hahahahaha

 

[mercanucaribe]

.

 

[aswedc]

not like the "credible" sources are that reliable either.

some studies performed by professional doctors and psychologists find a link between violent entertainment and violent behavior. some do not.

where do you go to get the middle ground? wikipedia.

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: 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.

You prefer the other results Google turns up?

Here is the #2 result for "creationism", after Wikipedia. http://www.creationism.org/

Real credible.

It's hard to find credible information. Common sense and a little education on what to look for is needed.

 

[Leejai]

In short for why this happens, Wikipedia's optimized for Google searches. I've done some SEO work in partnership with google and one of the big points for bringing your page to #1 is how many times your web pages are referenced. As we know, Wikipedia will link back to itself almost limitless (hencing making their reference high and likely #1).