Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

I have no idea what that meant, actually.

There you go.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

Basically, I think he's asking "Does Wikipedia makes us full of our ignorant selves?"

If I were to look up, say, Gestalt Theory (yay aperson) and read the whole article, would I know what Gestalt Theory is, or just get the gist of it?

I suppose the answer varies from term to term, but I think overall Wikipedia is pretty good at having thorough articles.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

Wikipedia is a good source for information, provided that if it seems like the article is inherently biased, links to more reputable sources of information are usually listed.

Without following the links to verify if the information is correct, it's just like any other source of information.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

I dunno.

Can you learn about a topic from an encyclopedia alone?

Therefore, can you learn it from an online encyclopedia that always updates and has external links?

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

Who cares? It's as useful as ever!

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

Wikipedia is better than conventional encyclopedias in every way. Actually, Wiki may just be the biggest combined repository of knowlege on the internet.

How people react to learning is their own problem.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

I cannot stand when people criticize Wikipedia simply because it's user contributed. Just because it's constantly being updated with new and relevant information, something encyclopedias cannot do, doesn't mean that information is somehow false.

Wikipedia is heavily moderated, and even the smallest changes are brought to fact-checker's attention. To test my theory, I once found a random entry about fish. In the middle of a random paragraph, I included the line "A fish's bones are most peculiar in that they are flexible and made mostly from cartiledge." Within two minutes it was flagged and removed.

Try it. Really. See how long it lasts.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

Our very own LD is an admin there =)

It's true. It bothers me that professors don't allow wikipedia as a reference simply because it's POSSIBLE that you get falsified information.

Even then, you can use it to learn about the topic and use an external link as a source, so it's all good.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

A lot of the time, wikipedia articles directly quote paragraphs from their sources.

If you look at the sources, you will find paragraphs from each of them spliced together with some transitionals in between. Wikipedia is a good way of finding knowledge, and if reputable sources are required, the links provide a great source for research.
Using an encyclopedia as a research source isn't a good idea for good research. It's a good starting point for redirection to better sources.

My teacher doesn't allow wikipedia as a reliable source but promotes its use as a diving board for the pool of information on a topic.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

I'm sorry, but I don't think the OP makes any sense whatsoever.

False authority? How so? Where does the site itself try to exert any type of authority?
Note that the entry is not written by Wikipedia as a whole, but by someone who claims to be learned in the field (and has not been refuted by anybody else who has reviewed it).

In other words, the writer of that article thinks that society has changed the definition of "Paradigm" to not reflect Kuhn's original topic. If you disagree with this, then make an argument against it. I personally agree with the statement.

Are you claiming that the wikipedia post is contributing false information? Or are you upset that the information is incomplete? Perfect! You're just what wikipedia is looking for: someone to contribute.

By nature, Wikipedia is always going to be a work-in-progress. It never claims to be the final word on anything, and as such I can't agree with the notion of it exerting any kind of authority over people due to a lack of information.

I am not much of a user of Wikipedia and thus have little knowledge upon which I can answer my own question.[/quote]

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

You can't critisize wikipedia for giving false information but you can critisize the submitters.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

This is a response I received that you might find interesting.

I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

this is the only line of this thread that matters.

Re: Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

What I think cobherst was trying to get at in the OP is that perhaps the information on Wikipedia is becoming like the meaning of 'paradigm' that Kuhn used. Overused, not giving the whole picture, etc. But as was already said, that's what all encyclopedias do.

I agree with the profs who say that Wikipedia isn't a good source. But then again, the paper's I've written have mainly been science based, and the only acceptable source are journal articles, and 90% of what you use should be original sources, with other sources only means to get ideas from. When writing a scientific article, one should always refer back to the original creator of information. But that's because we don't want people citing from citations, because with each interpretation of something, its less accurate. (Not necessarily less informative; often more informative.) And that's essentially what I see the crux of cob's argument is anyways.