BF2S Forums Why is Wikipedia not considered a good source here?

Varegg wrote:

The biggest mistake you can do is to rely on one source alone, wiki is great for getting relevant information quick and easy but to refer to a second source is even better.

I'll add to that: If your teacher or professor does not permit you to cite anything from Wikipedia for some idiotic reason, just click on the reference links at the end of the page (if there are any) and cite from there. Or just try Google.

Not so much because of the sources, but because of the OCD/Asperger/social reject editors.

Wiki is prone to bias on political subjects.

That's why I stick to interesting sciencey stuff like millitary equipment.

Here's an example of what might go wrong with wiki. A few years back, Greece had a dispute with Skopje because the latter wanted to name their country "Macedonia". The problem being that Macedonians were, and still are Greek, whereas the local population is mostly Slavs, and also that the Greek area adjacent to Skopje is also called Macedonia.

Only, with Europe and the US basically siding with Skopje on this one, the English wiki page (which naturally is more popular than the Greek one) referred to the country as Macedonia, even after a decision was made for it to be named F.Y.R.O.M.
If you prefer another example, look at the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Who do you think gets the lion's share when it comes to information about the situation there?
Point being: not all cultures are equally displayed on the internet. The English language and therefore culture and sources are dominant. Unavoidably, certain aspects of history dominate over others, some people make their voices heard and some others do not.

Mind you, I don't think wikipedia is a bad source. I use it all the time. I just think that in many cases its better to look elsewhere as well. Just to make sure mostly...

Last edited by oug (2007-05-09 16:13:52)

Vilham wrote:

stef10 wrote:

I like wiki a lot, but the problem is that too many can write a big load of shit. You do not need to a professor to talk about heavy science and so on. Atleast I do not think so.

Wrong, any shit that gets written up there is removed quick time. Wiki is one of the best online sources out there.

End of debate.

Then why last week, i witnesed soemone write i r teh leeter th@n j00s?

An important part of any scholarly material is the author.  Are they a reliable source?  Do they have adequite knowledge, and are they bias?

Who the hell knows with wikipedia?

The credibility of articles can be disputed, but that fact, in itself should throw up red flags of reliability.

It is a good way to get quick information, and frankly, probably good enough for a forum like this.  However, there is a reason a college professor will throw a paper back in your face if you use it as a source (I hope so anyways).

Eh - all information you get has a bias - you never get the full story! What do you think you learn in school? Something that everyone agreed on?
I guess no one read my post on the first page though...

-konfusion

CameronPoe wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

Wiki is prone to bias on political subjects.

That's why I stick to interesting sciencey stuff like millitary equipment.

Whose bias? There is a dispute procedure in place.

The bias of whoever rewrote the article last. I can't really tell a liberal opinion from a conservative one half the time (using the british parties of the same names as a guide was a mistake, 'liberal' does not mean 'corrupt assholes', and 'conservative' doesen't mean 'bunch of boring yet easily-manipulated old toffs desperate to be seen as cool', according the the dictionary), so I just see a strong opinion as bias and ignore the article.