well, pardon me for stating the obvious, but: duh.

the thing is, because ANYONE can edit the entries they should, after a while, weed out the bad stuff. it's a kind of "one billion chinese can't be wrong" type of system.

No shit lirbarian sherlocks.

It's a collective encyclopedia based on what others contribute and that's it. Verification is usually based on nothing more than linking to other sources. But as anyone who has ever done real research on anything knows, tons of material that can substantiate or dismiss things often is not online and will most probably never be online.

If it's older than 8 years, the Interntet is a horrible source for information.

Leave it to Syracuse to publish really obvious and stupid news... And people wonder why I don't watch the local news

I'd never heard of Wikipedia until today

At least the information about SG looks quite right and up-to-date..

i've never liked wiki's, wookiees are much more authorative. I mean would you argue with this guy if he laid down exactly how it was?


I wonder what shampoo he uses? silky

[Edited on Sep 05, 2004 by sync]

*shutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutup*

A really good librarian would quietly smack you with a ruler for using "sites" when you mean "cites."

The ideology behind a wiki is the same as the ideology of the internet itself; both are only as accurate as the people who maintain it, and neither should be taken as gospel.

[Edited on Sep 05, 2004 by AceTracer]

what, i thought it was like tv! look ma it's on the internet it must be true. It's funny I've started to find peoples attitudes towards information garnered on the internet as being similar in their blind faith in tv and the media.

the best thing anyone can do who uses the internet as a resource, especially if they want to cite quotes/references and data is to cross reference. i.e. find a variety of sources that all say the same thing. This either means that the data is most likely correct or that there are an awful lot of deluded people.

I think the problem is a unique combination of stupidity mixed with technological awe. Some people think that computers are "magic" and that anyone who can use them is a "genius". So building on that idea, some people think that if anything is posted on the Internet, it has automatically gone through some level of intellectual verification and such.

And I think the TV analogy is too narrow focused. Prior to TV people were gullible enough to believe that the "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast was "real'. Also, people still think--to an extent--that if you can publish a book, whatever that book says is automatically true. Ever hear someone said "Well, I read it in a book!" as proof that their point is valid?

People have been stupid for centuries. And no amount of technology will change that.

Wikipedia has quicly become one of my all time favorite sites.

I wouldn't use it as an academic source but I think it's an excellent tool for beginning your research. I find it reliable enough on most subjects to merit trusting it to guide you to other sources.

When I'm bored at work, I just go from link to link, reading about various shit. I love it.

Sure, Wikipedia is a debatable source. But can't that be said about everything?

And in other news, today experienced some weather.