Use of Wikipedia quotes in this forum is questionable

[cgymike]

Discussion is invited on the subject of whether wikipedia quotes should be allowed in here versus source material (non-derived). IMO it should not be allowed because of inaccuracies in most wikipedia material. It is open source and thus often tertiary or even further derived from the source material that produced it due to extensive edits not to mention vandalism and purposeful alterations. In this forum accurate historical and current affairs citations are of considerable value and importance so that's why I broach the topic.

Wikipedia is NOT accepted as an authoritative citable source in many instances and why not this forum as well. We can improve quality of posts here by disallowing it. But this is just my opinion and users here are welcome to discuss this.

[Harke the Boeotarch]

^ The problem with this notion is that many of the posters here seem to be so ignorant of even the most basic concepts discussed that unauthorative wikipedia is actually a step up for them.

[cgymike]

^ The problem with this notion is that many of the posters here seem to be so ignorant of even the most basic concepts discussed that unauthorative wikipedia is actually a step up for them.

My god I hope that is not the case.

[xbuzzerx]

My god I hope that is not the case.

I think it is.

[ChickenGuy]

I'm afraid you rather overestimate my research abilities, cgymike, if you're now expecting me to only quote from published works, thesis, academical papers, journals, and original-source statistics.

[jackoroe]

Wikipedia isn't perfect, of course. It isn't horrible either. We'll continue to allow it to be used. We'll allow it to be rebutted by other sources as well.

[Rolyo85]

Depending on subject matter, Wikipedia can be absolutely credible. And when it's not, there are easy ways to be disproven.

[csb999]

I do use Wikipedia often and often quote it . Its "authoritativeness" would be dependent on anyone who views it not by a person or group of people deciding that a person or persons is authority on something else , so reasonably , being constantly subject to external citicism it should be more acurrate ( idiosyncratic and constant editing versus no editing at all ) not less accurate . More accurate in that any one article in that over time should represent the opinion of the community.

[csb999]

looking at the printing history of Semelweiss . Complicated issue certainly . Silenced and oppressed by the medical community but towards the end suddenly became very eccentric in his behaviour , like schizophrenia or something , even his wife thought so .

[rareboy]

One of the reasons that Wiki should be allowed to be used is for the reference sources listed at the bottom of most articles. These often list a number of primary sources for the articles in one place that readers can then go to to expand their own research.

It is no more or less credible than the majority of other sources cited on this forum.

[Nishin]

Wikipedia banned but shitmedia like Fox/O'Riley yes?
Don't think so

[loki81]

"allowed"?

inaccuracies in most wikipedia material

I've never found this to be the case... are their inaccuracies? sure, but I would argue against "most" material. do you have any kind of citation? I'll accept a wikipedia article about it.

[Keeland]

IMO it should not be allowed because of inaccuracies in most wikipedia material. It is open source and thus often tertiary or even further derived from the source material that produced it due to extensive edits not to mention vandalism and purposeful alterations. In this forum accurate historical and current affairs citations are of considerable value and importance so that's why I broach the topic.

A cite or two to back your premise would have made it much more forceful.

In that vein, Wikipedia's entry (for what it's worth) on its own accuracy, pro and con.

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology[7] and pharmaceuticals[8] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.[9] However, omissions sometimes remained an issue, at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information. . . .

A Google search of accuracy britannica wikipedia hauled up this list.

[Rolyo85]

Wikipedia banned but shitmedia like Fox/O'Riley yes?
Don't think so

Word. And who decides what info is "accurate" anymore anyway?

[xbuzzerx]

Wikipedia banned but shitmedia like Fox/O'Riley yes?
Don't think so

My feeling exactly. Since I've been here this is the typical caliber of source material cited, if anything is cited whatsoever, and wikipedia would be an enormous step up. This forum doesn't seem to be suffering from an epidemic of misinformation because people are over-citing wikipedia. Like another poster said I think the discussions would actually be 3 or 5 steps up from where they are if everyone WERE using wikipedia as a baseline.

I also think the inaccuracy and unreliability of wikipedia, particularly compared to more singular sources which may be private, profit driven and entertainment geared under a "news" label, is incredibly exaggerated.

[Jack Springer]

Let's just ban the ones you don't like.

It could be like an old-fashioned book burning.

[TX-Beau]

This is an internet chat board not a thesis defense. I find it kinda amusing when anybody starts getting precious about sourcing and accuracy on a gay porn site.

If somebody cares enough about something said in here, they will go find the backup for themselves. That includes disputing WIKI articles and the fat man on the radio.

Talking about banning this or that around here is truly some kind of surreal.

[JayHawk]

I use wiki but try to stick with two types of information. if it is a general bit of data like the countries surrounding northern what the fuck-is-stan then a map out of wiki is typically okay... I have also found the recounted history on wiki is fairly accurate.

With analyzed data I will only use a wiki that has credible sources where I can verify the data... in that sense wiki has just done the hard work of presentation...

The content of CEP shouldn't rely entirely on outside sources either. The outside sources should be used to drive home a data point in an overriding discussion from the posters point of view... the most material should come from the posters finger tips not a outside source... I can read everything I need to ...

For that reason I may occasionally ridicule a source but typically I ridicule or question the data found within. Getting upset about sources when a poster has a opinion on a subject matter is the same as trying to win an argument by attacking the character of the poster... completely irrelevant and not very helpful to the conversation....

[maxpowr9]

^That's what I used wikipedia for also. It should be used for basic information only. Considering MLA has banned wikipedia as a reliable source, I would pass on it to cite anything.

There are a fair amount of other links on here that I found objectionable as a reliable source too but that's getting off topic.

[LeicsDom]

Discussion is invited on the subject of whether wikipedia quotes should be allowed in here versus source material (non-derived).

I don't see the problem so long as it is clear that Wiki is the source for reference.
Surely it is then up to the reader to decide if the source is reliable

[-Callum-]

Yeah, I'm guilty of reading Wikipedia to see the basics of some things. But I always skip to the citations at the end for the sources provided to see if they're any decent.

[Corny]

What is this? Is it 2003 again? Because that's when the big encyclopedias tried this scare tactic.

[Harke the Boeotarch]

What is this? Is it 2003 again? Because that's when the big encyclopedias tried this scare tactic.

Was that what that was all about?

I do still have the problem that a lot of politically relevant information I'm looking for isn't on wikipedia or anywhere else on the internet where I'm looking for it.

[JayHawk]

Harke I have often thought the data producers of my government should be required to deliver the data in usable forms... often i see reports from different sections of government that are in PDF format so unless I want to transcribe thousands of numbers I can not do a independent scrub of the data.

[cgymike]

Wikipedia isn't perfect, of course. It isn't horrible either. We'll continue to allow it to be used. We'll allow it to be rebutted by other sources as well.

Who is "we"...are you making a mod decision or is that the view of JUB?

[cgymike]

Wikipedia banned but shitmedia like Fox/O'Riley yes?
Don't think so

No. Fox is a current affairs source and sure it's got it's own view but because it is directly tied into news/current affairs it's useful for this forum if controversial. And in fact that controversy can enrich discussion where "opposing views" can be balanced/contrasted. And no I don't see Fox itself as "fair and balanced". CNN also is an important source!

[cgymike]

A cite or two to back your premise would have made it much more forceful.

In that vein, Wikipedia's entry (for what it's worth) on its own accuracy, pro and con.

A Google search of accuracy britannica wikipedia hauled up this list.

I am not interested in being forceful here but rather my motivation was to open a meta level discussion on this forum with respect to authority in quotation as pertains to derived sources. I might have pointed out other sources that are derived apart from Wkikpedia that's true but I wanted to have Wikipedia as a point of focus for the discussion to drill down on this issue of authoritativeness and souce material. Making the discussion "forceful" by ruse or deliberation was not my intent because that would frustrate what I am trying to discuss.
Thanks you for Wiki's own entry and I'll sure accept that as authoritative opinion on Wiki coming from Wiki...LOL

I'll dig more in Wikimedia and see what I can find. Thanks for the Google material too.

[cgymike]

My feeling exactly. Since I've been here this is the typical caliber of source material cited, if anything is cited whatsoever, and wikipedia would be an enormous step up. This forum doesn't seem to be suffering from an epidemic of misinformation because people are over-citing wikipedia. Like another poster said I think the discussions would actually be 3 or 5 steps up from where they are if everyone WERE using wikipedia as a baseline.

I also think the inaccuracy and unreliability of wikipedia, particularly compared to more singular sources which may be private, profit driven and entertainment geared under a "news" label, is incredibly exaggerated.

Good point about the calibre of discussion but that's critiquing this forum isn't it? Lots of material there for sure! I wikipedia is a derived source where does this leave the CEP Forum? Down in the dust isn't it?

[cgymike]

What is this? Is it 2003 again? Because that's when the big encyclopedias tried this scare tactic.

I don't understand what you mean. Sorry.

[CTF]

One of the reasons that Wiki should be allowed to be used is for the reference sources listed at the bottom of most articles. These often list a number of primary sources for the articles in one place that readers can then go to to expand their own research.

It is no more or less credible than the majority of other sources cited on this forum.

This ^.

And UNLESS you're a Fox News Only source driven Zombie, any source outside of that they're making up is considered "liberal bias" (aka the truth), so if anyone here quotes wiki it doesn't matter anyway.

[cgymike]

I use wiki but try to stick with two types of information. if it is a general bit of data like the countries surrounding northern what the fuck-is-stan then a map out of wiki is typically okay... I have also found the recounted history on wiki is fairly accurate.

With analyzed data I will only use a wiki that has credible sources where I can verify the data... in that sense wiki has just done the hard work of presentation...

The content of CEP shouldn't rely entirely on outside sources either. The outside sources should be used to drive home a data point in an overriding discussion from the posters point of view... the most material should come from the posters finger tips not a outside source... I can read everything I need to ...

For that reason I may occasionally ridicule a source but typically I ridicule or question the data found within. Getting upset about sources when a poster has a opinion on a subject matter is the same as trying to win an argument by attacking the character of the poster... completely irrelevant and not very helpful to the conversation....

Thanks for putting some thought into your post and the most sensible response so far. You are suggesting screening the wiki source quote against original source material. I concur. However, I can probably get source material from a search engine and go directly from there instead of wading through the wiki article to check for veracity because of "open-source" abuse (aka edits). But, I agree it's a start, and on more "factual" aspects, wiki has it's uses.
By "allow" in my OP I would modify that word to say "screened" where the article would be allowed if there was also some source material in reference to back it up.

A lot of the heated arguments here ad hominem and otherwise could be sorted if there was a "brass tacks" way of getting to the nub of an issue. How many times have we heard "back up what you say" and so on. Then the argements get personal when the person either is not willing to do so or does not readily know how to do it. Wikipedia is a bit of a crutch and what I am suggesting in all of this is a better way to substantiate in this forum. Obviously in HT and other forums it's not important.
But I am but one person and will not speak for anyone else or assign collectivity carte blanche assuming something that may not be shared by the community here.

[xbuzzerx]

Thanks for putting some thought into your post and the most sensible response so far. You are suggesting screening the wiki source quote against original source material. I concur. However, I can probably get source material from a search engine and go directly from there instead of wading through the wiki article to check for veracity. But, I agree it's a start, and on more "factual" aspects wiki has it's uses.
By "allow" in my OP I would modify that word to say "screened" where the article would be allowed if there was also some source material in reference to back it up.

A lot of the heated arguments here ad hominem and otherwise could be sorted if there was a "brass tacks" way of getting to the nub of an issue. How many times have we heard "back up what you say" and so on. Then the argements get personal when the person either is not willing to do so or does not readily know how to do it. Wikipedia is a bit of a crutch and what I am suggesting in all of this is a better way to substantiate in this forum. Obviously in HT and other forums it's not important.
But I am but one person and will not speak for anyone else or assign collectivity.

You're talking about real, real research though. How often is that even being used vs. people linking something from reuters or a private news source?

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

I am not interested in being forceful here but rather my motivation was to open a meta level discussion on this forum with respect to authority in quotation as pertains to derived sources.

Check out the big brain on Brad

[cgymike]

You're talking about real, real research though. How often is that even being used vs. people linking something from reuters or a private news source?

Well, original research is the ultimate of course and no, I'm not talking on that level. Merely talking about quoting material not engaging in original research to create the authoritative source material. True, a lot of research is done from secondary sources so you do have a point there.
We are not at Reuters or CNN but I'm sure Anderson Cooper has some derived stuff in his reportage.

[cgymike]

Check out the big brain on Brad

Thanks though not sure of the relevance to the subject at hand.

[TX-Beau]

Hah. you be more likely to get people to agree on "facts," and sources in Hot Topics. Who is going to be doing all this "screening," why is it necessary?

There is no source on the net that someone can't argue with, ignore, wish away, challenge, etc, that's never been different on any board anywhere and it's no different here.

Talking about "banning," and "screening," is ridiculous.

[cgymike]

I don't see the problem so long as it is clear that Wiki is the source for reference.
Surely it is then up to the reader to decide if the source is reliable

No because at issue here is the credibility of that source. Clarifying that it is wiki is understood but insufficient to establish veracity.

[cgymike]

Hah. you be more likely to get people to agree on "facts," and sources in Hot Topics. Who is going to be doing all this "screening," why is it necessary?

There is no source on the net that someone can't argue with, ignore, wish away, challenge, etc, that's never been different on any board anywhere and it's no different here.

Talking about "banning," and "screening," is ridiculous.

Where did I say banning? Like I said elsewhere I'm not making this such a forceful discussion though this forum is "not for the faint of heart" by definition. And if it is a rigorous forum in that way why shouldn't it also be in the sense of having robust posts backed up by authoritative source material. Not bullet proof, no, but an enhancement to the rubbish that is sometimes proffered.

I think your conclusions are a little pat and simplistic.

[TX-Beau]

Where did I say banning? Like I said elsewhere I'm not making this such a forceful discussion though this forum is "not for the faint of heart" by definition. And if it is a rigorous forum in that way why shouldn't it also be in the sense of having robust posts backed up by authoritative source material. Not bullet proof, no, but an enhancement to the rubbish that is sometimes proffered.

I think your conclusions are a little pat and simplistic.

Uhhh,

Discussion is invited on the subject of whether wikipedia quotes should be allowed in here versus source material (non-derived). IMO it should not be allowed because of inaccuracies in most wikipedia material. It is open source and thus often tertiary or even further derived from the source material that produced it due to extensive edits not to mention vandalism and purposeful alterations. In this forum accurate historical and current affairs citations are of considerable value and importance so that's why I broach the topic.

Wikipedia is NOT accepted as an authoritative citable source in many instances and why not this forum as well. We can improve quality of posts here by disallowing it. But this is just my opinion and users here are welcome to discuss this.

(emphasis mine)

Come on. Do you really think that requiring sourcing and referencing like we are all trying for our Doctorates would do anything other than kill this forum? It's kind of Gestapo like tactics anyway. Who get's to decide what is acceptable? You?

Really? People can say whatever they want however badly sourced, you don't have to read it. This isn't Harvard, it's JUB. Let's not pretend a good political purse fight has anything to do with "facts," in the first place.

[CTF]

By "allow" in my OP I would modify that word to say "screened" where the article would be allowed if there was also some source material in reference to back it up
.

A lot of the heated arguments here ad hominem and otherwise could be sorted if there was a "brass tacks" way of getting to the nub of an issue.

From a Mods perspective two things here:

1. Often times all that we get is an "opinion;" 'everyone who doesn't agree with my opinion are a group of screaming meanies, and I don't see why you don't get that.'
2. 'Here's a link that best conforms to my opinion, I'll quote the full copyrighted source, and I won't share with you my opinion about it, or care about your opinion regarding the source...discuss.'
   
   So, as Mods we're left with either editing one or the other, deleting one or the other, or waiting until it turns into a train wreck and either closing it, or deleting it.
   
   But good idea though!

[cgymike]

Uhhh,



(emphasis mine)

Come on. Do you really think that requiring sourcing and referencing like we are all trying for our Doctorates would do anything other than kill this forum? It's kind of Gestapo like tactics anyway. Who get's to decide what is acceptable? You?

Really? People can say whatever they want however badly sourced, you don't have to read it. This isn't Harvard, it's JUB. Let's not pretend a good political purse fight has anything to do with "facts," in the first place.

Gestapo? What? My opinion? That was disclaimed several times in my response posts by saying it was MY opinion. I. Me. NOT WE.
Of course people can say what they want (within the rules set out in the stickies).

Responded in kind to your post pal.

Kinda lacks content doesn't it?

[TX-Beau]

Excuse me? Is that not talking of banning something? Which you then said you weren't talking about?

If ANYONE is on here deciding who and what may be sourced that is indeed gestapo like tactics.

Everything else I said, pretty much stands.

You know why this is a ridiculous idea?

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war.../ideologue.htm

[opinterph]

I think Wiki can be a useful starting point and I sometimes quote it as a source. I think you just have to use a little intuition (e.g. additional research) before citing it as authoritative.

Example: The last sentence in this screen cap was later found to be incorrect.

[TX-Beau]

LOL that's funny.

[CTF]

I honestly cannot think, or recall a time where ANYONE who's posted in CE&P has ever used Wiki as a Primary Source to begin a discussion topic here in CE&P.

I use it as a link source to provide additional background from where I'm coming from on any given topic, but never as a primary source, and I can't honestly think of anyone (from either spectrum of any given debate) who has.

So, from that point it's a difference between using Websters, Merriam, or the Urban Dictionary as sources for defining certain words, and/or their meanings.

[Jack Springer]

I think Wiki can be a useful starting point and I sometimes quote it as a source. I think you just have to use a little intuition (e.g. additional research) before citing it as authoritative.

Example: The last sentence in this screen cap was later found to be incorrect.

Very thankful that last part was wrong -- however he could be stripping for Kim Jong-il.

[bankside]

LOL maybe JUB needs "fact checkers."

[TX-Beau]

I say we institute a panel to which anyone who wants to start a thread must SUBMIT THEIR ORIGINAL, AND SOURCED RESEARCH BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO INITIATE A DISCUSSION!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Sorry, my inner mad scientist got away with me...

[CTF]

Very thankful that last part was wrong -- however he could be stripping for Kim Jong-il .

If that were true Wikipedia would have referenced that.

[CTF]

LOL maybe JUB needs "fact checkers."

That's part of what everyone else is here for.

Isn't it?