|
Post by Razorback on Sept 8, 2006 14:25:47 GMT -5
Isn't Wikipedia the awesomeness? Lady Timedramon disturbed me by saying otherwise.
|
|
Lady Timedramon
Civilian
Beast Boy's #1 fangirl for over 20 years [H:2]
Posts: 54
|
Post by Lady Timedramon on Sept 8, 2006 21:50:35 GMT -5
The problem with Wiki is that ANYONE can "update" information, valid or not. We just had an incident at a board with someone quoting info that was just rumor and joke, but was being treated as "fact."
EDIT: Here is the example.
In a comic book they accidentally posted Power Girl's name as "Karen Steele" when it's "Karen Starr". At a fan board, someone jokingly suggested that Power Girl had married Cliff Steele (Robotman) at some point, then they were divorced.
Well, now the Wiki info says that Power Girl and Robotman were married, then divorced. Which never happened. I've been told it's been "corrected," but then someone always comes along and "re-corrects" it.
How can something be valid if just anyone, with proof or not, with true knowledge or just wild rumor, can go in and "update" an entry?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 9, 2006 9:39:37 GMT -5
Well, they keep logs of the different edits and a copy of how the page was before it was edited. Most staff there at wikipedia probably could just lock the page after a while, or simply change it back then put a warning to the people who keep re-editing it. I'm not a staff person of wikipedia, so I wouldn't know, but if people couldn't do that it would defeat the purpose of a Wiki, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Razorback on Sept 9, 2006 13:29:16 GMT -5
Sompthing like that, but Lady Timedramon does make a point.
|
|
Lady Timedramon
Civilian
Beast Boy's #1 fangirl for over 20 years [H:2]
Posts: 54
|
Post by Lady Timedramon on Sept 9, 2006 13:30:14 GMT -5
But they apparently don't. Instead of allowing these almost automatic updates, instead they'd be better off "taking submissions," then having staff members verify the information BEFORE it's posted.
Since they don't, that's why anything on Wiki has to be taken with a grain of salt, because it may or may not be true.
And to me, what's the good of using a reference source if I can't be sure it's at least 95% accurate?
|
|
|
Post by Razorback on Sept 9, 2006 13:32:07 GMT -5
That is a good reason, but Im sure that we can say that 99% of most people have a life and don't just mess up online encyclopedias.
|
|
Lady Timedramon
Civilian
Beast Boy's #1 fangirl for over 20 years [H:2]
Posts: 54
|
Post by Lady Timedramon on Sept 9, 2006 17:05:29 GMT -5
They don't do it intentionally, I'm sure, but once someone hears a rumor, it gets spread and eventually makes it as a "fact" on Wiki... then it's "corrected"... then "recorrected" to the wrong info....
When I teach internet research to my students, I have to teach them how to "verify" a source for its "validity."
If you're looking for information on cancer, which site are you going to trust: Wikipedia, or the American Cancer Society? If you're looking for information on heart conditions, are you going to trust information by the Cleveland Clinic (one of the foremost heart surgery hospitals in the US), or are you going to trust Wikipedia?
When it comes to Teen Titans info, who are you going to trust: Wikipedia, which everyone can change based on whatever rumor they hear or interpretation they make, or Bill Walko, who has run titanstower.com now for 15 years, owns just about every issue of Teen Titans, has gone to every convention, interviews producers of the comic and tv show, whose site is actually considered a resource by DC Comics writers, and who was also the graphic artist and a contributer to "The Titans Companion" produced by Twomorrows Press?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 9, 2006 17:07:27 GMT -5
Razorback fights for what he believes in with a very disturbing consistancy. Dont blame him.
Me and my bro are fans of wikipedia and have been using it for a long time.
|
|
Lady Timedramon
Civilian
Beast Boy's #1 fangirl for over 20 years [H:2]
Posts: 54
|
Post by Lady Timedramon on Sept 9, 2006 17:17:51 GMT -5
Wikipedia has it's place, but it really shouldn't be your primary source on anything, let alone your only source. Whenever I did a report on anything, you had to use at least 3 sources to check your info.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 9, 2006 17:24:47 GMT -5
Yep. Most teachers tell you that wikipedia isn't really a source...although normally it does have links to good pages which you can then cite. Can come in handy that way sometimes.
And I need to stop checking this page and go to bed. Its almost 3:30 pm. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Blackfire on Sept 9, 2006 21:36:53 GMT -5
One of my friends posted a link from Wiki about Naruto. And they said "failed show," or something of that nature. Man, they were dead wrong. Naruto is HUGE as anything.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 9, 2006 22:53:59 GMT -5
Haven't seen it and dont plan on seeing it from what Razorback told me. Ive read a little about it, and it seems like it has a few weird aspects for a show. Not a really big fan of it.
|
|
|
Post by Razorback on Sept 10, 2006 11:55:29 GMT -5
Wikipedia isn't my primary sorce for anything, its just fun to go there. Oh and sorry but I'm not a Naruto fan, last time I watched it was just a bunch of people teleporting, and turning into logs (Cats did too).
|
|
|
Post by Blackfire on Sept 10, 2006 13:03:04 GMT -5
That's ok, I don't mind. I was using it as an exmaple. << Wiki is sometimes helpful when you're looking for something.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 10, 2006 14:10:53 GMT -5
Or you can look up the definition of Cheesy Poofs and pointless fun like that to pass time. Which I have done many times. I think thats normal...eh...
|
|