I generally dislike quoting from Wikipedia, because it has a reputation for having articles written by agenda-driven couch potatoes, and being vandalized by agenda-driven sith-disturbers.
However, Wikipedia can be an interesting place to lurk. But every once in a while I notice a glaring distortion. Not just an innocent error, but a detailed "fact" deliberately placed there by it's adgenda-driven writer.
I was thinking about this today at work. And then tonight, I happened to come across a minor distortion that only I would notice.
I was surfing for material about well-known Canadians who had been struck by depression. I learned from cbc.ca that both Margaret Lawrence and June Callwood had suffered depression.
(There is an interesting .wmv, at cbc.ca, of Adrienne Clarkson interviewing Margaret Lawrence in 1966. Lawrence's books often depict characters dealing with repression and depression. Lawrence would commit suicide 20 years later.)
Knowing little about Callwood, I did a google search. I decided to look at the Wikipedia entry on her. Here is the offending passage:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In July 2005, a Toronto park was named after June Callwood. She continues to inspire people for her ideas, but mostly for her incredibly generous spirit. It is fitting that a calm and beautiful place now shares her name.
I pass by this "calm and beautiful place" every day on the way to work. While it may be a park someday, right now it is still a patch of dirt, covered in rubble and weeds and debris from the surrounding construction.
Anyone else here ever catch errors or distortions in Wikipedia?
Encyclopedias are, by their nature, unreliable and shallow. Wikipedia has an added negative that anyone can post, raising additional doubt about its content. Ironically, this is also a positive, because it means you can find coherent and informative articles about things that nobody had heard of a week ago.
I think its useful as long as you respect its limitations.
I find it very useful as the referral links are often solid enough to chase down the originals and it's generally more up to date than other "repositories".
I do like the collaborative aspect - there was a good article about it and how it has drawn out some real experts in esoteric aspects.
The pace at which knowledge is moving forward I think requires this kind of effort and I do believe the open aspect then enables checks on blatant errors.
I'd say it's fairly straight forward to ascertain opinion from factual record and the links are gathered on any one subject.
Perhaps if you point out a specific example it would help.
I think google leads to greater distortion due to the linking algorithm.
I'd actually like a search alternative tho I see google has scholar segments for some terms.
__________________ Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
However, Wikipedia can be an interesting place to lurk. But every once in a while I notice a glaring distortion. Not just an innocent error, but a detailed "fact" deliberately placed there by it's adgenda-driven writer.
But on the flip side... some of the articles I have come across plainly state that an article is contentious or biased. One of the nice things about Wikipedia I would say...
When comparing it to other encyclopedias I like this approach as I know I will never have an editorial voice when it comes to the New American Heritage Dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britanica
True, true. Sometimes reading the discussion tab on those pages can be a hoot. Makes the discourse on ehMac look like gentlemenly discussion in comparison.
Personally I love it. Would I use it for a research paper? Not a chance. But looking up info on something, especially if it is somewhat unheard of, it's the first place I go. Also, it's whole open-contribution thing reminds of the future as predicted in the EPIC flash
__________________
"Windtunnel" - DP867 MDD, 1.25Gig RAM, OS X.5 |
"Hrimfaxi" - White Macbook 2.4Ghz C2D, 4GB RAM, OS X.6 |
"Bragi" - 1st Gen iPod Touch
AirPort Extreme
Wikipedia is also good for getting a feel for of a topic. When I want to understand a subject and it's surrounding topics in 30 seconds, I go straight to the Wikipedia entry.
When you read, say, an article about "Malaysian culture" in an encyclopedia, the writers often go overboard in trying to be disinterested and impartial, so they tend to say "safe" things. But "safe things", while accurate (in a sense), aren't always useful.
Wikipedia isn't meant to be used an encyclopedia per se (as in you can't really cite it ), I think.
It has all kinds of interesting cross-references that keep *sucking me in* and will not let me go. I don't know what it is about this site that keeps me reading. Don't depend on it for pure information. The editor has a lot of 'tude.
While Wikipedia should definitely not be used for "serious" research (as to be used in some sort of assignment) it is extremely useful for getting a good understanding of a topic (so you have a broad idea of a subject before heading into more detailed info). Some of the articles that are works in progress (eg- if they deal with something controvertial) are interesting to follow because you get to see the evolution of the topic (especially if its something where new discoveries are being made that necessitate a change in the article...some of the discussions are really interesting).
__________________
When my fist clenches, crack it open...
Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
Linear Mode
