Discussion of WikiPedia formerly Re: Good Star Wars PS2 games?

[Gold Man]

swbf, swbf2, and other non starwars games by pandemic all use zero. (Wikipidia says)

Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source.

[Joseph]

Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source.

True, neither are Encyclopedia Britannica, the New England Journal of Medicine, Carl Sagan, the Pope...

[Ltin]

Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source.

but wikipidia enforces anti vandalism things
To quote a certain meme(im to lazy to make it) One does not simply vandalize wikipidia.
wikipidia requires a reference, and will often lock vandalized topics.
most importantly, people who actually care will find proof that something is wrong, and fix it, so now there isnt a problem. I see nothing wrong with wikipidia, and i dont understand why some teachers dont like it.

[tirpider]

It is still a publicly maintained knowledge base.

Uncited information is mere conjecture and not fact.

Even the stuff that is cited could be comming from incorrect sources or based on superstition.

With the mainstream encyclopedias, you get researchers that are vetted and a bussiness that risks it's bread and butter on factual content.

With wikipedia, you are banking on enthusiasm.

I'm sure there is a wiki article about exactly that, somewhere...


-edit
I like to hit the "Talk" tab on wiki pages to see what disscussions have happened regarding edits or even deletions.  It gets pretty dramatic sometimes.

[Joseph]

Error rates in Wikipedia have been found by certain studies to be comparable to those of "mainstream" encyclopedias (Nature compared it to Britannica), plus the half-life of glaring errors is far smaller, for reasons already cited in this thread (I would be very interested to know if any investigators have studied the respective error lifetimes between the two, I think that would be equally significant).

"Publicly maintained knowledge base" sounds pretty good to me, honestly. Knowledge shouldn't be owned by anyone.

At any rate, the argument that some source is untrustworthy because it hasn't been written by experts is fallacious, simple and plain.

[tirpider]

At any rate, the argument that some source is untrustworthy because it hasn't been written by experts is fallacious, simple and plain.

I'll trust the opinion of a degreed scholar or a vetted field expert before even considering the stated facts from some random basement dwelling netizen.  I mean no offense toward random people with ideas or opinions, but having a thought doesn't make it fact.

Wikipedia is a nice collection of data, and I use it regularly, but it is always with the understanding that the crazy guy at the bus stop might have written the article or that the article is 'maintained' by a stubborn egomaniac.  The same could be said for the hardcopy Encyclopedias but if given a choice, I'll trust the one who's dinner relies on accuracy and who's ascertations are citable and rooted in empirical data.

If this makes me an info-snob, so be it.

Appologies to Kit for the derail.
We should move the wiki disscussion to general if we want to continue it. Wiki doesn't have much to do with cool PS2 Star Wars games.