Wikipedia and Critical Thinking.

**devonin** · 06-19-2007, 03:13 PM

I was going to preface the start of my post with some number of the innumerable dismissals that get bandied about in CT each and every time someone references or quotes from wikipedia. However, I'm sure you can all remember plenty of them, so I'll save myself the time of finding them and save you the time of reading them.

I find such dismissals of the use of wikipedia insulting and ignorant, frankly. Yes, we are all aware that anybody can come and change the text of wikipedia. Yes we are all aware, in fact, that many people entertain themselves all day by doing just that. But this is where a little discernment on the part of both the users of wikipedia, and those who read threads where wikipedia is referenced.

First, some general statements about Wikipedia:

Encyclopedia Britannica in 2000, did a study of Wikipedia and concluded that on subjects for which EB had entries, the entries on Wikipedia for the same subjects were in most cases -equally- as accurate, and in most cases -more- complete.

Every Wikipedia page has an edit history showing you who edited, and what they edited, going back to the day the page was created, which is freely searchable and readable by users.

According to Wikipedia, entries on current events, and celebrities are the most vandalized, and entries on esoteric academic matters are the least vandalized. Conversely, esoteric academic entries have writers who pay the most and closest attention to edits, to revert them.

So what we get from all this, is that while yes, changes and vandalizing can and do happen, they chance is greatly reduced that a page on an academic subject will be vandalized, the chance is greatly increased that it will be reverted by the author quickly, and what is there is generally the even match, if not the superior to formal print encyclopaedia.

Where I'm going with this is this:

There is NO reason to dismiss somebody's evidence simply because that evidence comes from wikipedia.

This is an informal discussion forum on a game website, not a formal debate or defense of thesis, as such, the burden of evidence is greatly reduced. Even if someone is providing evidence from a print source, here in CT we don't demand bibliographical information, and page-specific citation, nor should we. We ask only that people point to some kind of corroborative evidence.

When people reference Wiki, you are free to go to the site yourself, view the exact text of the quote, view the exact bibliographical citation provided -for- the quote, and you can take that information to a library, look up the book, and directly see the text if you are so inclined.

This is true of all pieces of writing. If I cite a source in an essay, the only circumstance in which I should be required to produce that source directly to you is if you doubt the veracity of it, and were unable to find it yourself to check.

Wikipedia is held to fairly stringent standards of citation, and for discussion for the purposes of discussion, in a forum like this, it is a more than adaquate source.

So seriously folks...if you have an intrinsic problem with Wikipedia being used as a reference material, the onus is on -you- to track down the source being referenced, and prove that it is not a valid source. Simply quoting that someone used Wikipedia and spouting off some "Duur, Wiki isn't usable, my teacher told me so" answer really should not fly here.

lord_carbo · 06-19-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin

*Huge post*

So seriously folks...if you have an intrinsic problem with Wikipedia being used as a reference material, the onus is on -you- to track down the source being referenced, and prove that it is not a valid source. Simply quoting that someone used Wikipedia and spouting off some "Duur, Wiki isn't usable, my teacher told me so" answer really should not fly here.

Of course. My sister keeps telling me "ANYONE CAN EDIT WIKIPEDIA" and I get really annoyed at it. It's the general concept of Wikipedia that scares people away, yet they have no idea how the system works. And good: Wikipedia needs less editors who don't. Natural selection!

I ask, though: why? Is it possibly due to the fact that the type of people who'd be regularly updating Wikipedia are the types who'd take what they do seriously? That's what I'd assume.

**devonin** · 06-19-2007, 03:57 PM

Especially when it comes to the more academic entries, I imagine that is -exactly- what is going on.

Random idiot Foolenheimer doesn't want to spend four hours writing a nonsense entry about something so esoteric that only one person a month might actually go see, they want to edit the crap that people go to all the time, pop culture stuff, celebrity stuff, scandal stuff.

However, the kind of person who would -want- to spend four hours writing a detailed and referenced entry on say, the Waldensian Reformation is exactly the kind of person who will a) Research it well and b) Check back every day to make sure nobody has wrecked their precious entry.

As an aside: At my university we are -encouraged- to make use of Wikipedia, not as reference material in itself (which is just as not allowed here as at most institutions) but because wiki pages are very well referenced, and we can get useful source information from peer-reviewed journals, and scholarly monographs by scrolling on down to the bottom, and -also- using the same resources the person who wrote the page used as our own sources.

ToxicShadow · 06-19-2007, 04:25 PM

People drive me crazy when they say "Anyone can edit Wikipedia... so anyone can screw it up."

That's completely true. However, anyone can edit Wikipedia, so when one person edits in something wrong and five-hundred people read it, chances are somebody will fix it pretty fast.

I don't understand the paranoia that goes on. I have never been misinformed by Wikipedia.

**Moogy** · 06-19-2007, 04:28 PM

I've spent more time on Wikipedia than most people have. More time than is healthy, really.

Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia unless it's about pop culture (anime, games, music, etc.) Anything pertaining to science, philosophy, religion, etc. on Wikipedia has a 99% chance of being total BS made up by some random guy.

The end.

**devonin** · 06-19-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Anything pertaining to science, philosophy, religion, etc. on Wikipedia has a 99% chance of being total BS made up by some random guy.

Or you can -not- read a word I said. If you are going to make such a melodramatic claim as -99%- of the academia on Wikipedia is made up, you damn well better have a -lot- of corroborative evidence.

Lets see your proof that say...10,000 of wikipedia's pages on academic subjects are total BS, be sure to provide the sources you used to generate this proof.

I've spent many years studying philosophy -and- religion, as well as history and many other academic subjects, and I've yet to find a single thing on wikipedia claiming to be factual in those fields that I have corroborative proof of the falsity of that wasn't visibly the result of very recent vandalism, usually from people with a history of vandalism, and even the barest look through the edit history of the page will prove that to be the case.

trillobyite · 06-19-2007, 05:11 PM

I've seen people add in a false statistic right in the center of a wikipedia paragraph and then use that in debates against me, even though official sites documenting whatever issue proves that statistic wrong. For dates, sure. For a general scope on things and great external links, good. But not every sentence taken from wikipedia should be looked at as truth. There needs to be some corroborating, or at least, logical evidence too.

**Kilgamayan** · 06-19-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillobyite

I've seen people add in a false statistic right in the center of a wikipedia paragraph and then use that in debates against me, even though official sites documenting whatever issue proves that statistic wrong.

This is what the history tab is for, as well as those official sites. If the person you are debating with persists after you point out that they just made their incorrect information up on the spot then they're probably not worth debating with.

rules_the_school · 06-19-2007, 07:43 PM

*Warning, may contain pop-culture refference and mindless rambling*

God this is like the "Mac is better the PC's cause a commercial told me" thing. Just because SOME people say that "Omigosh! Anyone can edit wikipedia! That mean's it wrong!" Doesn't mean it's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToxicShadow

However, anyone can edit Wikipedia, so when one person edits in something wrong and five-hundred people read it, chances are somebody will fix it pretty fast.

^
Is a very nice answer. I guess some people just can't see that just because it's not written in stone/ink, it's not correct. Well, books have been wrong too before right? Like the "Man will never land on moon" or "We'll all live in space in the year 2003!" but nobody ever made a big deal about that.
I think the whole wikipedia thing is a bunch of malarky or a big scandal made up just to sell news. People who don't like wikipedia don't have to spend every waking minute complaining, they should just... stick to encarta..

**devonin** · 06-20-2007, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rules the school

I think the whole wikipedia thing is a bunch of malarky or a big scandal made up just to sell news.

Um...support? proof? anything? How on earth does wikipedia sell news? Or are you trying to say that -criticisms- of wikipedia are made up to sell news? None of this makes any sense. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, nothing more. There are issues presented with the manner in which information is presented, but they are addressable.

Please explain how this is "malarky" please?

rules_the_school · 06-21-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin

Um...support? proof? anything? How on earth does wikipedia sell news? Or are you trying to say that -criticisms- of wikipedia are made up to sell news? None of this makes any sense. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, nothing more. There are issues presented with the manner in which information is presented, but they are addressable.

Please explain how this is "malarky" please?

Oh I wasn't talking about wikipedia, I was talking about how the media portray's wikipedia, I guess I have to be alot more specific..

Tattoineteenager · 06-21-2007, 07:08 PM

I think one needs to take wikipedia with a grain of salt. There is a considerable ammount of evidence proving that anyone can go and edit the resource, and they even sometimes do edit the academic pages. One day upon loading a page for my rome paper in school I was greated by "Alexander the great was a pansy!!!". Yet sometimes wikipedia is the only place on the internet you can find information (for free). So I go with the method of using it as a source but checking all facts in other places as well.

**Sane** · 06-22-2007, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tattoineteenager

There is a considerable ammount of evidence proving that anyone can go and edit the resource, and they even sometimes do edit the academic pages.

... There is no debate about whether or not people are vandalising pages. That's not the issue, and vandalism on Wikipedia is a pretty well known fact. What's being discussed is whether or not the vandalism should disclude Wikipedia as a viable citation in the critical thinking section.

I agree completely with the OP. Everyone who has argued with him thus far obviously hasn't read his post... or just doesn't understand it.

lord_carbo · 06-22-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rules_the_school

Oh I wasn't talking about wikipedia, I was talking about how the media portray's wikipedia, I guess I have to be alot more specific..

Yeah there's a huge difference, and, uh, it's popular. That's why there's news about it. Just like why there's news about celebrities--you know 'em.

Raziel_Darkeden · 06-22-2007, 12:10 PM

Yes, but it's people like Stephen Colbert that make people not trust wikipedia. It's not like he's done a whole lot to help the case.

**devonin** · 06-23-2007, 12:23 AM

This is a potential solution.

The above is entirely a joke.

06-19-2007, 03:13 PM	#1
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Wikipedia and Critical Thinking. I was going to preface the start of my post with some number of the innumerable dismissals that get bandied about in CT each and every time someone references or quotes from wikipedia. However, I'm sure you can all remember plenty of them, so I'll save myself the time of finding them and save you the time of reading them. I find such dismissals of the use of wikipedia insulting and ignorant, frankly. Yes, we are all aware that anybody can come and change the text of wikipedia. Yes we are all aware, in fact, that many people entertain themselves all day by doing just that. But this is where a little discernment on the part of both the users of wikipedia, and those who read threads where wikipedia is referenced. First, some general statements about Wikipedia: Encyclopedia Britannica in 2000, did a study of Wikipedia and concluded that on subjects for which EB had entries, the entries on Wikipedia for the same subjects were in most cases -equally- as accurate, and in most cases -more- complete. Every Wikipedia page has an edit history showing you who edited, and what they edited, going back to the day the page was created, which is freely searchable and readable by users. According to Wikipedia, entries on current events, and celebrities are the most vandalized, and entries on esoteric academic matters are the least vandalized. Conversely, esoteric academic entries have writers who pay the most and closest attention to edits, to revert them. So what we get from all this, is that while yes, changes and vandalizing can and do happen, they chance is greatly reduced that a page on an academic subject will be vandalized, the chance is greatly increased that it will be reverted by the author quickly, and what is there is generally the even match, if not the superior to formal print encyclopaedia. Where I'm going with this is this: There is NO reason to dismiss somebody's evidence simply because that evidence comes from wikipedia. This is an informal discussion forum on a game website, not a formal debate or defense of thesis, as such, the burden of evidence is greatly reduced. Even if someone is providing evidence from a print source, here in CT we don't demand bibliographical information, and page-specific citation, nor should we. We ask only that people point to some kind of corroborative evidence. When people reference Wiki, you are free to go to the site yourself, view the exact text of the quote, view the exact bibliographical citation provided -for- the quote, and you can take that information to a library, look up the book, and directly see the text if you are so inclined. This is true of all pieces of writing. If I cite a source in an essay, the only circumstance in which I should be required to produce that source directly to you is if you doubt the veracity of it, and were unable to find it yourself to check. Wikipedia is held to fairly stringent standards of citation, and for discussion for the purposes of discussion, in a forum like this, it is a more than adaquate source. So seriously folks...if you have an intrinsic problem with Wikipedia being used as a reference material, the onus is on -you- to track down the source being referenced, and prove that it is not a valid source. Simply quoting that someone used Wikipedia and spouting off some "Duur, Wiki isn't usable, my teacher told me so" answer really should not fly here.

06-19-2007, 03:57 PM	#3
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: Wikipedia and Critical Thinking. Especially when it comes to the more academic entries, I imagine that is -exactly- what is going on. Random idiot Foolenheimer doesn't want to spend four hours writing a nonsense entry about something so esoteric that only one person a month might actually go see, they want to edit the crap that people go to all the time, pop culture stuff, celebrity stuff, scandal stuff. However, the kind of person who would -want- to spend four hours writing a detailed and referenced entry on say, the Waldensian Reformation is exactly the kind of person who will a) Research it well and b) Check back every day to make sure nobody has wrecked their precious entry. As an aside: At my university we are -encouraged- to make use of Wikipedia, not as reference material in itself (which is just as not allowed here as at most institutions) but because wiki pages are very well referenced, and we can get useful source information from peer-reviewed journals, and scholarly monographs by scrolling on down to the bottom, and -also- using the same resources the person who wrote the page used as our own sources. Last edited by devonin; 06-19-2007 at 03:59 PM..

06-19-2007, 04:25 PM	#4
ToxicShadow FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 107	Re: Wikipedia and Critical Thinking. People drive me crazy when they say "Anyone can edit Wikipedia... so anyone can screw it up." That's completely true. However, anyone can edit Wikipedia, so when one person edits in something wrong and five-hundred people read it, chances are somebody will fix it pretty fast. I don't understand the paranoia that goes on. I have never been misinformed by Wikipedia.

06-19-2007, 04:28 PM	#5
Moogy 嗚呼 Join Date: Aug 2003 Age: 34 Posts: 10,303	Re: Wikipedia and Critical Thinking. I've spent more time on Wikipedia than most people have. More time than is healthy, really. Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia unless it's about pop culture (anime, games, music, etc.) Anything pertaining to science, philosophy, religion, etc. on Wikipedia has a 99% chance of being total BS made up by some random guy. The end. __________________ Plz visit my blog ^^^ vintage signature from like 2006 preserved

06-19-2007, 05:11 PM	#7
trillobyite FFR Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New York Posts: 310	Re: Wikipedia and Critical Thinking. I've seen people add in a false statistic right in the center of a wikipedia paragraph and then use that in debates against me, even though official sites documenting whatever issue proves that statistic wrong. For dates, sure. For a general scope on things and great external links, good. But not every sentence taken from wikipedia should be looked at as truth. There needs to be some corroborating, or at least, logical evidence too. __________________ Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html

06-21-2007, 07:08 PM	#12
Tattoineteenager FFR Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 7	Re: Wikipedia and Critical Thinking. I think one needs to take wikipedia with a grain of salt. There is a considerable ammount of evidence proving that anyone can go and edit the resource, and they even sometimes do edit the academic pages. One day upon loading a page for my rome paper in school I was greated by "Alexander the great was a pansy!!!". Yet sometimes wikipedia is the only place on the internet you can find information (for free). So I go with the method of using it as a source but checking all facts in other places as well.

06-22-2007, 12:10 PM	#15
Raziel_Darkeden FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 337	Re: Wikipedia and Critical Thinking. Yes, but it's people like Stephen Colbert that make people not trust wikipedia. It's not like he's done a whole lot to help the case. __________________

06-23-2007, 12:23 AM	#16
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: Wikipedia and Critical Thinking. This is a potential solution. The above is entirely a joke.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)