Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PghUSA

Wikipedia . . . worst addictive substance known to man?

21 posts in this topic

I just spent about 7 straight hours updating, editing, conversing, discussing, texting, re-editing, re-posting etc. etc. etc. on Wikipedia. I know the internet can be addictive but I seriously need to head towards Wikipedians anonymous. Coming down from the high now, coming down from the high, I'm crashing bad. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


^

As long as Wikipedia's credibility continues to be in good standing, you have done well :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't the only one. I'm ALWAYS looking up info on towns on there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

As long as Wikipedia's credibility continues to be in good standing, you have done well :D

Yep... Aren't they more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica? I find it sad that my cousin's high school teachers still say that the Wikipedia doesn't count as a "trusted source". I use as a general source of information whenever something comes to mind. The wikipedia does us all a great service.

Thanks for the warning though ... I'm already addicted to this place I don't need something else tying me up on the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't the only one. I'm ALWAYS looking up info on towns on there.

Same here, there have been many times where I've stayed up for hours looking through info on different cities across the world, and suddenly realized that it was 2 or 3 in the morning. I really enjoy Wikipedia....sometimes to much! ;)

I actually just became a "wikipedian" or so they called me in my welcome letter. I guess it could be called an editor, but I've really just been editing and writing pages related to New Orleans and Louisiana so far. I'm looking forward to contributing more there in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is definitely addictive. Inhaling vaporized alcohol is supposed to be more addictive than drinking alcohol because of the speedier entry through your lungs, like crack. On Wikipedia it is just too easy to start skimming an article with mild curiosity and then clicking a link to another article and another and so on, with nothing to slow your curiosity.

How can you maintain and enhance Wikipedia's credibility? Cite sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with Wikipedia are people that have an agenda and put it in an article. I mean it's common knowledge that George Bush Jr is hated by millions, what sucks are those that hate him will just put things in that they have no proof of-like George Bush lied about Iraq. Says who? Where's the proof? Being an idiot and believing bad information is not the same as lying. I just wish those maggots would leave Wikipedia for good. The same thing could go for Osama Bin Laden-someone putting in false info just because they have a political agenda.

In case anyone wonders-I can't stand George Bush Jr, just using him as an example.

Also references cited can be suspect too if the person writing the reference has an agenda too.

That being said I always use Wikipedia. It's great if you want up to date info. I just came off it and like was mentioned only wanted to look at one article and found myself clicking link after link.

For instance I wanted to look up the movie Restoration, I was just watching it, and the first thing I notice when I opened it was an article on James II of the UK (for a brief period I got him confused with James I) then I checked out the Glorious Revolution, then I checked out the Magna Carta, then I became interested in periods of time-800's 1600's 1700's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Indeed. Too many people cite Wikipedia as a definitive source when that is not anywhere close to being true. I find that many of the facts there, as related to cities are often incorrect and put there by city boosters that are more interested in making their cities look better, rather than putting forth accurate facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with Wikipedia are people that have an agenda and put it in an article.

Well.. in wikipedia's defense, don't they usually put in red letters up top "the accuracy of this page is disputed" with a link to the conversation about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with Wikipedia are people that have an agenda and put it in an article. I mean it's common knowledge that George Bush Jr is hated by millions, what sucks are those that hate him will just put things in that they have no proof of-like George Bush lied about Iraq. Says who? Where's the proof? Being an idiot and believing bad information is not the same as lying. I just wish those maggots would leave Wikipedia for good. The same thing could go for Osama Bin Laden-someone putting in false info just because they have a political agenda.

In case anyone wonders-I can't stand George Bush Jr, just using him as an example.

Also references cited can be suspect too if the person writing the reference has an agenda too.

That being said I always use Wikipedia. It's great if you want up to date info. I just came off it and like was mentioned only wanted to look at one article and found myself clicking link after link.

For instance I wanted to look up the movie Restoration, I was just watching it, and the first thing I notice when I opened it was an article on James II of the UK (for a brief period I got him confused with James I) then I checked out the Glorious Revolution, then I checked out the Magna Carta, then I became interested in periods of time-800's 1600's 1700's.

There's a quote in DaVinci Code that I thought was pretty interesting: "History is always written by the winners, not the losers". Same goes for Wikipedia and most reference books and media. About the only thing written that most likely does not contain any bias is probably the Dictionary. And even then... :lol:

Wikipedia is fun, just don't quote it as your "factual" source for anything that you want people to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everthing that is written by man has bias to it. Usually only one part is told and not the entire story. We don't really know what has happened in History but what someone wanted to tell us. I imagine there is alot left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everthing that is written by man has bias to it. Usually only one part is told and not the entire story. We don't really know what has happened in History but what someone wanted to tell us. I imagine there is alot left out.

Maybe. If I see a population count from the US Census, that is based on going out and counting heads by a defined and published procedure. I can choose to believe it or not, but I know how the numbers got there.

On the other hand, if I see a population count in Wikipedia, where did it come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/mul...438900a_m1.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Too many people cite Wikipedia as a definitive source when that is not anywhere close to being true. I find that many of the facts there, as related to cities are often incorrect and put there by city boosters that are more interested in making their cities look better, rather than putting forth accurate facts.

Wikipedia isn't a source though. That's like writing a literature analysis of a Cliff Notes summary. However, it is a good repository for the general story behind many issues. I find that while linking to Wik is lazy at best, exploring the links cited on Wik, and then linking to those is perfectly acceptible. Often they're good links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm Wikipedia addict, too. It's handy for finding info for something I've forgotten like the name of a state capital. I don't fully trust the entries there, but they're a good guide. I do use the resources listed to find more information.

I'm even more addicted to Lostpedia. I like to find clues and hints to show, so it's a good resource for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments on this, Wikipedia will always have bias I agree, because like almost everyone has stated, you will spend hours and hours and hours on that thing and still have 20 things you want to do before leaving it, anyone that committed to something has to have passion for the subject or subjects that they are editing, discussing, or even hotlinking out of wiki.

I agree though that although you have to take everything there with a grain of salt (or at least read both the discussion, article and history comments to get an idea of any disputes), it is probably the greatest source for finding a website.

I have searched for countless minutes on Google or Vivisimo to try to find something, while a Wiki article usually have great citations and external links all set up. Great great resource. But there has to be a Wikipedians Anonymous lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should do an UrbanPlanet Wiki. Then we will know it is right. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone off on a tangent many times in looking for articles on Wikipedia, so I know how you feel, Pgh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should do an UrbanPlanet Wiki. Then we will know it is right. :)

:lol: to be quite honest, this board is just slightly below wiki on my "boy how the time flies" meter.

What I do like about Urbanplanet is that there is no seperation with the history, discussion and article, and a lot less links to have you go into hours and hours of time wasting glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone off on a tangent many times in looking for articles on Wikipedia, so I know how you feel, Pgh.

It really is something special, even with Google or Vivisimo or Ask you have a few relevant links and most of those are dead ends, the thing so dangerous about Wiki is that you could literally click for infiniti, every new article, history or discussion has along with it 20 different links, those 400, those 8000, those . . . and all these things your have passion about or you wouldn't have done the original search in the first place. I wonder if Wikis Anonymous has been trademarked yet :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.