Wikipedia? HATE IT! I rarely use it and I wouldnt cite it as a source in anything I would like to be taken seriously. Only if there is no other source readily available do I even bother to look at it and then I check the sources cited for credibility and any apparent biases. While pointing out the unreliability of Wiki recently in a different forum, I came across the following excerpt from Marcel Berlins writing in The Guardian (UK) concerning Wiki..."The "spirit of Wikipedia" is at risk, we're told; its fundamental philosophy is under attack. Good. About time. Allowing anyone to contribute to it without checking his or her credentials was always a flawed concept, encouraging inaccuracy, unreliability and irresponsibility... I don't think there's a way of telling what proportion of Wikipedia entries are deficient, whether because of the writer's bias, mischief or lack of knowledge. It's clear that a significant number are questionable, sufficient to lead us to suspect all entries."
I couldn't agree more. Never mind that there is an entire website dedicated to cataloging the biases of Wikipedia to be found at wikipediabias.com and that Wiki isnt allowed to be cited as a source by students, along comes another reason for me to dislike the favorite tool of the faux intelligent and wannabe intellectual .....
"Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in their favor and are trying to lure more people into their world, an investigation by FoxNews.com confirms.
Chat room posts show a clear effort by pedophiles to use Wikipedia, which can be accessed unfiltered in public schools across the country, to further their agenda. Message board posts often include links to specific Wikipedia articles that the participants say need to be edited to "normalize" pedophile behavior in the public eye and to recruit more pedophiles into their community.
“Pedophiles have campaigned to push their point of view that 'pedophilia is OK and doesn’t hurt children' on Wikipedia,” says Xavier Von Erck, director of the online pedophile watchdog organization Perverted Justice Foundation and Wikisposure.com, its offshoot project devoted to tracking pedophiles and pedophile activism on Wikipedia. “This has been a problem since Wikipedia started."
Chat room posts show a clear effort by pedophiles to use Wikipedia, which can be accessed unfiltered in public schools across the country, to further their agenda. Message board posts often include links to specific Wikipedia articles that the participants say need to be edited to "normalize" pedophile behavior in the public eye and to recruit more pedophiles into their community.
“Pedophiles have campaigned to push their point of view that 'pedophilia is OK and doesn’t hurt children' on Wikipedia,” says Xavier Von Erck, director of the online pedophile watchdog organization Perverted Justice Foundation and Wikisposure.com, its offshoot project devoted to tracking pedophiles and pedophile activism on Wikipedia. “This has been a problem since Wikipedia started."
Can anyone actually think of a worse site to go to for information?
11 comments:
"Can anyone actually think of a worse site to go to for information?"
Yes. Conservapedia, where you get most of your stuff when you aren't getting it from Worldnutdaily.
Wiki is mostly useful as a starting point for reference material via their citations.
There are also google scholar sites that list citations and references to books on a variety of subjects.
Of course students, and academics in general would never cite a wiki article in a paper of any kind.
Every book and article ever written is biased to some extent. It is the job of the reader to decipher if the biases are justified or not justified.
Wiki has been shown to be as accurate as Britannica; a notion to keep in mind when mining data. Both are great sources to rapidly acquire terms for GIS and of little use for anything else.
With Froggie, everything is biased; and biases may be justified based on your biases. The truth, however, doesn't care to what you are inclined.
>>Wiki has been shown to be as accurate as Britannica; a notion to keep in mind when mining data.
There was an outdated study that claimed this. My own experience (as a student of medieval philosophy) is otherwise. See my posts here
http://ocham.blogspot.com/search/label/wikipedia
A large number of wikipedia articles are based on public domain versions of the Encyclopædia Britannica. (Mostly the Eleventh Edition).
Wikipedia works hard to maintain a neutral point of view.
The fact that Fox News was in a pedophile chatroom and found people talking about trying to "normalize" pedophilia using Wikipedia says nothing bad about Wikipedia.
"Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false."
JD...damn...something we agree on.
Wikipedia is really just the equivalent of "I heard someone say", all be it in a written form.
I will say this though: Wikipedia has often times led me to actual information. For example, an article might reference a particular fact about something that I then can go research further. That's actually been helpful over the years.
As a side note, an interesting twist of Wikipedia concept is the urban dictionary. The overall philosophy is similar...community contributed information...but it isn't really intended to be taken all that seriously. That noted, if you are wondering what a particular slang term means, I've found the urban dictionary is actually pretty useful.
I have found Wikipedia to be starting point - by that I have looked at references cited and looked for convential and accepted articles, journals, citations, or information that may be noted, cited, or referenced.
I use it very little since my emphasis is theological and I go to the reference material suited to the genre or topic.
I don't think I would advocate not using it as a source completely - as in anything discretion must be utilized.
I don't use it for any thing.
I don't know JC, from what I have seen of Wikipedia they seem very accurate- at least as a starting point. I have also found the internet quite useful as a whole for theology questions or just about any questions.
Granted I would never cite an internet source or Wikipedia source on a scholarly work unless it was an academic online journal, but I do find it useful for basic information on anything you want. This is from air conditioning to soup to nuts!
As for Wikipedia being some sort of haven for Pedophiles, this is the first I am hearing of such a thing. I would certainly hope this is not the case.
Listen, you little pretentious puffball, semi-literates like you spend their lives trawling Wiki. Why do you deny this?
But of course, you're a Jerk for Jesus--that explains a lot.
Nothing more than a lying self-publicist at best...
You're just a silly boy, who's no doubt never read a good book (no pun inteneded) in his life. Keep jerking off to your imaginary boyfriend! Holy Jism!
Bullwinkle Twinkletoes!
Thanks for stopping by. The above news article I cited informs us of "a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in their favor and are trying to lure more people into their world". If you think that this assertion is factually incorrect, then you are welcome to post evidence to contrary.
Although your above comment may deemed to be offensive by even the most open-miunded of secular humanists, I decided not to delete it and let it stand on it's own merits as a testimony to your intellectual depth and and fathomless capacity for reason.
For an encore, dare we hope for a PZ Myers quote?
Post a Comment