Look into your wallet or purse

[Cavernio]

Re: Look into your wallet or purse

My point in a nutshell: The internet is not an archive. A library is.

I think this topic is turning into something that people in library sciences are probably gobbling up right now.

The thing about the internet and places like Wikipedia is exactly that they aren't peer-reviewed, scrutinized, not-allowed-to-be-published-until-perfect pieces of work. This makes any of their factual knowledge extremely sketchy. And then there's always the problem where people take ideas and take them as fact.
But it certainly has the appeal of capturing more opinion, more thoughts, more everything that often published work just doesn't take.
But on the other hand, the internet is also constantly changing. It is a media source where you can find information about anything you want, but as soon as someone takes down a page, that info's gone for good. It's being constantly updated to fit with our times. That in itself is chopping away soooo much information. Imagine how much more awesome and informative wikipedia would be if it kept every single entry that was ever inputted, instead of always updating to the newest and therefore, obviously, 'best' version. We don't tend to throw out books because their old.

I ripped 1 person apart on this site already for quoting essentially garbage about the way the brain works.

tas: I disagree with the old lady simply because its very possible to still stumble upon information on the internet.

[Afrobean]

Re: Look into your wallet or purse

The Internet is a living archive. To say that sources such as wikipedia are not peer reviewed is just stupid. That's EXACTLY what they are. Everytime I read an article on wikipedia, I'm reviewing it. If it's not factually true, or if there is something which would make it appear to be "not perfect" I change it.

People taking opinions as fact, eh? Maybe retarded people. Yeah, I guess most people are retarded, but that's beside the point. If people are going to be stupid enough to talk opinion as fact, then they truly are stupid and aren't even worthy of talking of as though they are sentient beings.

Imagine how much more awesome and informative wikipedia would be if it kept every single entry that was ever inputted

They do, as far as I can see, except for obvious vandalism.

We don't tend to throw out books because their old.

We do if we get a revised version of the book.

stumble upon information on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stumble_upon

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[ebs2002]

Re: Look into your wallet or purse

That in itself is chopping away soooo much information. Imagine how much more awesome and informative wikipedia would be if it kept every single entry that was ever inputted, instead of always updating to the newest and therefore, obviously, 'best' version. We don't tend to throw out books because their old.

There's actually a changelog of wikipedia edits =) You can look at what used to be said about the topic if you wanted.

I agree 100% that the factual knowledge can be sketchy at times. A friend told me once about how he made up a psychoanalysis method on wikipedia that was absolutely ridiculous, but stayed on the site for a month before people realized it was a complete farce.

However, on the internet one CAN obtain access to peer-reviewed articles (although at a price). There are a plethora of scholarly article databases and journals who have moved their information online. It's not as complete as a library as far as peer-reviewed works, but what the internet lacks in scrutiny it makes up in breadth.

One can learn of more topics by perusing the internet than they can at the library, I would imagine. It would be an interesting study, for sure.

[Cavernio]

Re: Look into your wallet or purse

"There's actually a changelog of wikipedia edits =) You can look at what used to be said about the topic if you wanted."

oops