U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Veterans Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:26 PM
 
722 posts, read 1,611,584 times
Reputation: 284

Advertisements

I have heard for awhile not to believe things on Wikipedia but now I think I am actually going to start not believing wikipedia. I have had several instances where I would see an article with only one side of the story on it. I would add the other side of the story to it and cite the CREDIBLE sources I had found(some of which were on the same articles the OP had cited) and they still deleted it and gave me a warning. Today I went and did the same thing to an article and one of the administrators there erased it again. I went and posted my sources in the discussion section and one of the administrators came on and told me I was wrong and even named off his sources, one of which I had already cited and it clearly said differently from what he was alleging it said. Obviously the administrators there are just people with their own opinions and leeway to allow that to be the article made out like it is truth despite the evidence to the contrary that others bring. The Fox News of the encyclopedia world?

Last edited by brajohns81; 09-02-2010 at 10:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,847 posts, read 2,002,399 times
Reputation: 1748
Wikipedia is biased

Lots of inaccuracies and administrators are way biased. Too many opinions are posted as fact or truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,345 posts, read 83,888,766 times
Reputation: 17566
Seems like the stuff I read on Wikipedia isn't that vulnerable to bias. Just basic facts, dates, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:45 PM
 
722 posts, read 1,611,584 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles View Post
Seems like the stuff I read on Wikipedia isn't that vulnerable to bias. Just basic facts, dates, etc.
No way. I have explained why above. I was skeptical about if what I heard about the site was true before my experience today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
10,739 posts, read 32,102,984 times
Reputation: 6803
Quote:
Originally Posted by brajohns81 View Post
I have heard for awhile not to believe things on Wikipedia but now I think I am actually going to start not believing wikipedia. I have had several instances where I would see an article with only one side of the story on it. I would add the other side of the story to it and cite the CREDIBLE sources I had found(some of which were on the same articles the OP had cited) and they still deleted it and gave me a warning. Today I went and did the same thing to an article and one of the administrators there erased it again. I went and posted my sources in the discussion section and one of the administrators came on and told me I was wrong and even named off his sources, one of which I had already cited and it clearly said differently from what he was alleging it said. Obviously the administrators there are just people with their own opinions and leeway to allow that to be the article made out like it is truth despite the evidence to the contrary that others bring. The Fox News of the encyclopedia world?
I'll tell you what they told me when I returned to school not too long ago. It is not an accept source for material to be used in reports of any kind. Not considered reliable or a primary source. This I knew before entering the class, I was closer in age to the teacher and kind of chuckled when some of the kids barely out of diapers were shocked at the teacher responded to the query.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
31,129 posts, read 50,281,431 times
Reputation: 19828
I had an account on the Wiki discussions. I posted on a few topics of which I had personal experience and edited some of their write-ups to make them more factual [along with documentation].

I was blasted and every correction that I made was deleted.

I provided eye-witness testimony myself of events which I attended. I was dis-credited since my testimony was at odds with their opinions of history.

I have pretty much stopped using my Wiki account.

There does exist a phenomena where a group of people decide what they think happened in history, and it becomes carved in stone. So much so that documentation otherwise is scorned. Group-think opinion is more powerful than eye-witness accounts of events.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 08:10 AM
 
40,161 posts, read 41,766,549 times
Reputation: 16735
Wikipedia is a good place to find source material that is used as citations, beyond that I'd be careful about what you use.

Quote:

Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx - broken link)

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 08:14 AM
 
40,161 posts, read 41,766,549 times
Reputation: 16735
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
I was blasted and every correction that I made was deleted.

I made some corrections for some basic non controversial information for an industry I've persoanlly been involved in for 20 years and my family has been involved in since 1920. All were removed, that was my first and last contribution. They are still wrong to this day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 08:29 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,892 posts, read 33,621,908 times
Reputation: 13827
At Wikipedia, some entries have gone back and forth between versions thousands of times, in a sort of online tug-of-war. Whoever updates each entry last is correct, except when they're not.

It's not authoritative, but it is useful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 09:48 AM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,460,133 times
Reputation: 1376
There's always the endlessly amusing -- but never intentionally so --Conservapedia:

Conservapedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top