Co-founder of Wikipedia says it is "Broken beyond repair"

[Blitzkommando]

"The founder of the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia criticised the Education Secretary [UK] yesterday for suggesting that the website could be a good educational tool for children."

Article here (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1637535.ece)

I have to say I'm not quite on either side of this. Wikipedia should never be sited as a primary source in any educational sense, this is true. However, looking at the sources used can provide excellent, and verified, information. But, unfortunately it can also bring false information.

Wikipedia, from my viewpoint, is good for getting a general idea about something where you then can do further research of other means (university reports, schooling, books written by experts of the subject, et cetera). I'm not discouting that I spend a lot of time just reading on it, but I also find myself checking out the information to verify it. It also tends to provide a single view, or very generalized summaries, on subjects with more than one side.

[PJ]

I heard about that guy.

I think he plans to make another Wikipedia-like site, but I can't remember what change he was making to make it, "Oh so much more glorious."

I wouldn't say to never use it as a primary source, but I'd say, "Never JUST Wikipedia."

[KodiaX987]

Back several months ago, I thought Wikipedia was the best thing since sliced bread and should be elected Time magazine's man of the year.

But now that /b/ exists and invades... I'm not so sure. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif

[ABDUR101]

I still use wiki just to look up things I read or hear about. However, it's just like any other source of information, it's taken with a grain of salt.

As for /b/, they're the reason schools have hall monitors. Abunch of children with nothing but time on their hands.

[navci]

On 2007-04-13 00:58, Norvekh wrote:

Wikipedia, from my viewpoint, is good for getting a general idea about something where you then can do further research of other means (university reports, schooling, books written by experts of the subject, et cetera). I'm not discouting that I spend a lot of time just reading on it, but I also find myself checking out the information to verify it. It also tends to provide a single view, or very generalized summaries, on subjects with more than one side.



Ditto. Use Wiki to get an idea or maybe some links, to find more links and then more info.

But seriously though, Wiki is a good read when you're bored. I read about cheese the other day, did you know there are many cheese related pages?

[Sinue_v2]

Speaking of cheese, look up the guy "Le Pétomane" on Wikipedia sometime. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[kevlar_pso]

I usually find myself drifting over to the comic book pages. That way I can catch up on all things X-Men that I've missed since Jr. High.

[Axel3792]

My buddy Nick puts it the best:

"The Wikipedia is like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It is vast, user-created, and almost entirely wrong."

mmhmm.

[concussionman]

On 2007-04-13 04:39, PJ wrote:
I heard about that guy.

I think he plans to make another Wikipedia-like site, but I can't remember what change he was making to make it, "Oh so much more glorious."



He was talking about making a user edited search engine that allowed the users to edit the types of results that you recieve for the different searches. So instead of giving general information, you can link, or deep-link(maybe) to other sites with more information.

[Jive18]

On 2007-04-13 23:35, concussionman wrote:
He was talking about making a user edited search engine that allowed the users to edit the types of results that you recieve for the different searches. So instead of giving general information, you can link, or deep-link(maybe) to other sites with more information.



That sounds interesting enough. Similar to others, I use wikipedia to search general topics when I hear about them, but never to really find correct information to use/cite in academics or anything.

[Neith]

Wikipedia's useful enough- most of the entries in there are accurate enough. It's just when you get people who aren't up to speed on some topics altering them with inaccurate information it becomes a little risky to use.

Like most people here, I use it for generalizing a topic, then look for more detailed information on more trustworthy sites.

[concussionman]

The problem with the current wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone. Even though you have the ability to restore a page to a previous format, someone who doesn't know this might receive some faulty information.

[BogusKun]

I much prefer Encyclopedia Dramatica! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[ljkkjlcm9]

say whatever you want, but experts that work on Britannica say that Wikipedia is more often, more accurate and far more up to date.

THE JACKEL

[Wyndham]

well, certain internet communities seem sto screw up lots of things. at least some parts of Wikipedia are stil ok. for a while, some of te PSP board on Gamefaws were going back and forth insulting people in the PSP entry.
awful stuff.