• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

wikipiedia up 60% inaccurate???

Daveroo

Daveroo

Members +
just saw a report on my local morning tv show..its called "goodday sacramto" great show,"hard news,with a sense of humor",they start at ,i believe,4:30am,and go off the air at 10am,lots of good stuff..theyve showning my diecast collection on liveair,with a cute girl named Julisa Ortiz,she and the camaeraman were here for 3 hours to do 2, 5 minute live shots...cracked me up...just to show my tanks and airplanes...and that caused me to become friends with one of the weather/entertainment guys..i would call him when i heard a fire or law enforcement call on my scanner and he would call calfire or placer county SO to verify and then put it on air.and that created a personal friendship and he and his wife would come visit on weekends,(since i no longer drive ,they came here) and he and i talked on the phone often,he also started a thing where fans of the show would sit in the studio and watch the last hour of the show being done...he did it as a way to get me and my folks there to see the show..and we were the first "guests"...now there are people in studio everyday and people fight to get in to see the show..

errr..back to my point...marrianne the anchor,was saying that wikipiedia is up to 60% incorrect.and the reason why is that they (wiki) relies on input from poeple out in cyberspace for content.....then she looked at the camera and says....well no ****?..they paid someone to do a study to tell them that people in cyberspace may not know what theyre talkin about?...idiots

then paused and the place erupted and she whispers...was i still on air???


was hilariuos.....
 
Daveroo,

Did anyone mention where that 60% figure came from and how it was arrived at? I have a real problem with the way stats are thrown around in the media.

JAMES
 
my point to the post wasnt really about wikipiedia,,,but rather the reaction of the anchor...i just thought it was amusing...she was "put aside" that someone did a study for one,and for another most likely got paid to do it,and the fact that ALL online content is uploaded by humans at some point.
 
In areas that I am pretty darn sure that I know what I'm talking about, I've found Wikipedia to just be about half right. But some of the stuff that people put on there is way off.
 
This was always well known, universities will not accept Wiki references in submitted papers and thesis.
 
Naismith said:
This was always well known, universities will not accept Wiki references in submitted papers and thesis.
Click to expand...

"Wikipedia makes a good starting place for a search. You get terminology, names, and a feel for the subject."
Often that's the hardest part.
I don't know how we got on, before da Internetz
 
10 years ago when I was in college, we weren't allowed to use any internet sources for papers.
 
nice
JulissaOrtizLarge.jpg


but she's no pat ciarroci :icon_lol: of course, even pat's gettin a little old these days.


i think part of it's accuracy depends on the subject matter. a great many articles i have read about music, or music related stuff was accurate. some basic history stuff i have referenced for context in a post was good info. things found in any jr high textbook sorta thing, i mean. otoh, i wouldn't use it as a resource to help me understand nuclear science in the first place
:cool:
 
It may be wrong or inaccurate some times, but in reality, very few things are competely accurate. Last summer when we lost Liberty Belle, I found out just how completely unbelievable the media really is... I even saw one report that said it fell out of the sky and killed everyone on board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-witt
 
I've found Wikipedia to be an excellent starting point for any original research I've need to do. I'd certainly never consider it as a primary source, no more that I'd consider The New York Times as a primary resource...
 
n4gix said:
I've found Wikipedia to be an excellent starting point for any original research I've need to do. I'd certainly never consider it as a primary source, no more that I'd consider The New York Times as a primary resource...
Click to expand...

Very good point Bill.. That's how I view it... It's like a 'quick fix' when you are looking for some information. It does the job, but if you want something that will last, or some good information, you go with something more in-depth.
 
Wittpilot said:
It may be wrong or inaccurate some times, but in reality, very few things are competely accurate. Last summer when we lost Liberty Belle, I found out just how completely unbelievable the media really is... I even saw one report that said it fell out of the sky and killed everyone on board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-witt
Click to expand...

My late mother, whom I shall describe as "politically active" was sometimes interviewed. I remember on occasion specifally when a reporter from a local newspaper interviewed her on our porch. I was present for the interview, on the other side of a screen window, so I know everything that was said. When the article appeared, we were all surprised to find that several of her statements had been altered. The print article didn't exactly fabricate; what it did was to drop several adjectives and adverbs out of her statements, as if someone had decided these weren't necessary to get the gist of what she had said, and were otherwise extreneous, taking up valuable column space. Well, as far as we were concerned, they not only changed the meaning of what she had said (remember, I was there) but the revision made her look like a bigot. Now I know some of this is explicable due to deadline pressure, and restraints on column space, but I've never forgotten the experience. Some acedemic a hundred years from now could dig up that article and think he knew what my mother had said, and be wrong.

I still say what's good about Wikipedia is the same thing that's bad about Wikipedia: anyone can contribute. That could go for the whole internet. What's much more frightening to me is the assumption that because someone is reading a teleprompter on TV, he is a tacit "expert".


JAMES
 
I think Wikipedia is one of the most significant additions to the internet to come along. Like anything you need to pay attention to the sources that are cited and use your own common sense. It is one source.

One of the most depressing things I have found since so much information has become available on line is how many books, particularly autobiographies that have shaped our understanding of events are at best "truth enhanced" or outright fabrication of events. This may be due to ego or just to help find a publisher, but it has driven home the fact that you need to be careful of your sources, online or print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top