See other Author! Author! Articles
Title: Wikipedia is not a textbook
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 25, 2015
Author: Dmitry Erokhin
Post Date: 2015-01-25 02:09:23 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 730
Comments: 7
Pravda.Ru A Pravda.Ru correspondent talked with Wikipedia's editor, winner of Wiki Award 2012 Dmitry Yerokhin if it was reasonable to ban the online encyclopedia in Russia, which was suggested earlier by Deputy Head of the Russian Federal Agency for Education Control, Aleksandr Biserov: "In my opinion, and I have repeatedly voiced it, I would ban Wikipedia. I would just censore it. Because the number of errors it contains is way over the limit". Wikipedia improves always "Users themselves should decide if it is reasonable to prohibit it - whether they need it or not. Wikipedia has no preliminary moderation. If there are any errors, they may exist for a while but administrators gradually eliminate them and check articles. Any user can access the Wikipedia website via a personal computer and correct them as well. It is not some constant that Wikipedia has errors. People write articles there and they can make errors on purpose or unintentionally. Errors are gradually eliminated and Wikipedia is improving." The Pravda.Ru correspondent asked the Wikipedia's editor if today there was a resource containing so much information similar in volume and scope. "The resource contains information, but the key word here is that it is an encyclopedia that must provide brief initial data to its user. If the Wikipedia's user needs more detailed information then there must be references to the primary source, articles and primary websites on a certain subject, where the user can go to delve deeper into the subject. Many people are under a delusion thinking that Wikipedia is verified for some correctness or standards of specialized editions and scientific articles. It is written in a rather comprehensible popular-science style, in other words it must be simple and provide some public information. If we take a themed textbook and start comparing it to a Wikipedia article then, of course, it can surpass it by some parameters, maybe even all of them. However it does not have such a task, it will never replace a textbook. First of all, it is an encyclopedia and it is incorrect to compare it to other specialized resources." Pravda.Ru
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
True, but for most purposes is is good enough.
"Woodhenge and Stonehenge are thought to be originally built by aliens, a popular theory among all modern scientists. There is no evidence for it being built by any other logical means. Some say it was built by King Arthur, others say the rocks were stolen from the giants in Gulliver's Travels. Aliens from another world may have visited earth 4000 years ago and left their mark in the form of architecture. The manifestations of alien races are not just present in Woodhenge and Stonehenge, but also in many other world heritage sites such as the Pyramids of Giza, Easter Island, and Machu Picchu." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodhenge
I've found Wikipedia to be useful on subjects that are not cultural or political and thus susceptible to leftist/marxist/multiculti/etc. bias. It's good for info on technical subjects such as digital filters, for example.
"List of Websites Critical of Wikipedia" (actually articles) in a site whose motto is "Putting the wakeup alarmclock to Wikipedia's head since..... Oh God, has it been that long?" wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=4
Wikipedia: Want research written by Pharma hacks on a website founded and funded by porn-industry money from a porno-king named Jimmy Wales? That’s Wikipedia. Like being coerced into quack therapies for preventable diseases that make matters worse, fast? Just look up your health problems on Wikipedia, the ultimate quack-info internet hub. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=194424 Title: Here are the 10 most popular websites that consistently LIE about important health topics URL Source: http://investmentwatchblog.com/the- ... about-important-health- topics/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I love humanity -- it's the people I can't stand.
One of the things i despise the most about wikipedia is the wikigangs. Groups of people that watch certain articles to control the content of the article. Government is the worst at this especally small government. New braunfels city council for example watches the new braunfels wiki page and continues to insist that new braunfels is a suburb of san antonio despite being over twenty miles away from SA. Any attempt to correct it is shut down by folks that dont even like living in NB but how how they love our tax dollars. Assholes. The royal rife page is another example of an infested wikipage. Gangs of pseudoskeptic watch and control the page to ensure it remains disparaging of the man. I call them pseduskeptics because they troll stuff like this for fun regardless of intellctual honesty and true skepticism. Yeah wiki is like a loose guide to things but it's not trust worthy as a source by anymeans, even the refernces can be crap... like the rife article that links to another wiki page as a reference despite the rule about not using another wiki page as a reference...cause you know, anyone can edit it. ______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
9 Strange Wikipedia Stories http://www.oddee.com/item_99730.aspx The "dictionary anyone an edit" doggedly refused to let Filip Roth correct his own entry -- etc etc! _____________________________________________________________ Wikipedia is not a textbook
#2. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
#3. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
#4. To: Somebody out there... maybe (#3)
#5. To: All (#4)
#6. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
#7. To: All (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest