Do you use Wikipedia as a source for information?

HeathfieldRoad1874

HeathfieldRoad1874

Miserable Sod
http://gizmodo.com/anti-science-trolls-are-starting-edit-wars-on-wikiped-1724422402?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29&utm_content=Netvibes

It’s no surprise that people tamper with Wikipedia entries on a regular basis, but it turns out that especially dedicated trolls have been sabotaging entries on politically controversial science topics like evolution and global warming.




Be careful, and always double check your facts. These idiots are out to sabotage us all!!!
 
As Bill Burr says when he's talking about politics and conspiracies, "according to my YouTube and Wikipedia research!"

I do find it a useful source of information regarding music, football, movies etc. but as for other things like politics and science I can't trust it because there is no one to validate it

 
Agreed, SJH. We've had a few discussions on here, and very often Wiki is used to "prove" a point. I've always said, dig deeper.

The media aren't much better. They just want to sensationalise things, so it's always worth a bit more work.

I know the Creationists have got whole raft of people employed to do things like this, as well as people deliberately embedded in Science education and research as well.

Such a shame that free thought is not allowed by some.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 16/8/2015 19:59

I know the Creationists have got whole raft of people employed to do things like this, as well as people deliberately embedded in Science education and research as well.
Click to expand...

That I wasn't actually aware of, but not surprising at all. Scary isn't it? Too many people take Wikipedia as an official source of information.

I suppose there are other free press type of sites and sources too that could be more trustworthy but again too many people will take the mainstream media as the official line, when mostly it isn't at all

 
I use Wiki, but only for a quick reference - nothing political or other sensitive issues. The problem I find with for instance google, is after one or possibly two page they seem to sometimes wonder off what you're looking for.

At Least with Wiki you know the page refers to what you are actually searching for..... but as you say, it could of been tampered with.
 
Stephen Jay Hawkings - 16/8/2015 20:05

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 16/8/2015 19:59

I know the Creationists have got whole raft of people employed to do things like this, as well as people deliberately embedded in Science education and research as well.
Click to expand...

That I wasn't actually aware of, but not surprising at all. Scary isn't it? Too many people take Wikipedia as an official source of information.

I suppose there are other free press type of sites and sources too that could be more trustworthy but again too many people will take the mainstream media as the official line, when mostly it isn't at all
Click to expand...

I don't think many know how organised and well funded they are. Students have been completing Geology and Genetics degrees for years, and once qualified they start revealing their true colours. It's an attempt to add some credibility to their batshit crazy ideas!!!

I didn't know the Global Warming people were so active, as well. I suppose it makes sense, when you see the corporations it hurts.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 16/8/2015 20:59


I know the Creationists have got whole raft of people employed to do things like this, as well as people deliberately embedded in Science education and research as well.
Click to expand...

If this is correct then the only logical inference is that they know that they are wrong and are sabotaging, but of they know they are wrong, to what end?

 
Wikki is a useful general reference if I want to find out some quick details on a person, however not a source I would take on it's own
 
It's is a shame, it is such a worthy idea and should be the fountain of all wisdom... however same as all walks of internet life (we've suffered it on Vital as well, including far from pleasant death threats) the spineless trolls think themselves far more important and so set out to ruin it.
 
Its not just wiki. Youtube is just as bad. People can make some convincing documentaries via youtube which look the real deal but are just lies and spins on the truth.

Examples of such... america was behind 9/11. You have always got to ask yourself, who.is the author? Where did they research? Who has published this? In videos such as those you may find a random name with zero credentials but they mainly hide behind a blog site.
 
No mate, you mistook the figures.

It actually said 93% on Vital Villa think you are a dick!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :2: :5: :17: :17: :17: :17:
 
Usually I check the references in the text, and if there are no citations then I don't pay much attention to it
 
david-avfc - 18/8/2015 17:40

Usually I check the references in the text, and if there are no citations then I don't pay much attention to it
Click to expand...

Was gonna put something similar tbh, and it does say 'citation needed' where it should be.

It's a fantastic tool to get a rough idea on certain subjects, then you can delve deeper elsewhere, but it's so much more in depth than an old fashioned encyclopedia, plus it gets updated almost instantly.
 
The Fear - 19/8/2015 00:20

No mate, you mistook the figures.

It actually said 93% on Vital Villa think you are a dick!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :2: :5: :17: :17: :17: :17:
Click to expand...

Haha, I remember that survey. Good times. I'm glad I filled in the other 7% of the forms. Otherwise, I would have looked like a right tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.