Where are the sun spots?
- Thread starter IH3444
- Start date
- Views: 5974
DocHeb
Veteran Member
alchemysa said:
Palatable does not mean it is true.
Why, with 24,999 prior public corrections needed, would you suppose that the current version is correct?
My two college kids are not allowed to use any Wiki article as a reference in their papers for a reason.
Last edited:
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 51,575
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
Maybee he was alluding to your previous statement about the .. uh.. reliability of all things that come from wiki? 
In a pinch.. they are generally ok for some things.. or general knowledge.. but I'd sure hate to have to rely on them for anything important..
soundguy
In a pinch.. they are generally ok for some things.. or general knowledge.. but I'd sure hate to have to rely on them for anything important..
soundguy
alchemysa
Veteran Member
SPYDERLK said:
Thats funny. And MikePA's response was revealing.
alchemysa
Veteran Member
DocHeb said:
I could have put it another way. I could have said it had 25,000 revisions or refinements. All the rough edges have been knocked off. Any contentious statements have proof or references (citations) to support them. Hopefully its about as true as anything you'll find on the net.
Schools don't like kids relying on Wiki because its too **** easy. They want the kids to do some research and use their brains to sort the wheat from the chaff. They don't want to receive 30 identical papers.
But what are the better alternatives to Wiki? A 10 year old encyclopedia? A website put together by a half dozen guys with an agenda? A website constructed by someone who is trying to sell you something?
(edit. I have a very keen interest in a particular science/health topic. I've studied it very closely for 6 years. I'm not entirely happy with the Wiki article about that particular subject, but I would describe it as 'correct but inadequate' rather than 'wrong'. It could say a lot more but it would begin to delve into areas where less proof is available. I think this is disappointing but I understand why that is so. Wiki isn't a forum for speculation.
(Ooops.... Another edit. I just realised I made a big mistake in the figure above. It should have been 500 corrections since 2002, not 25,000. I thought it said there was 500 pages of 50 corrections per page.
Last edited:
alchemysa
Veteran Member
alchemysa said:
Hmmmm. I still havent got this correct. It may have been more like 2500 corrections since 2002. Its hard to work out. Anyway its a lot. And some topics get way more revisions. 'Global Warming' gets about 500 on a busy month. Of course many are just simple punctuation corrections. Barack Obamas' got 500 in 20 days.
Often I find the Discussion and History tabs a heck of a lot more interesting than the articles.
For those who are interested, or those who dismiss Wikipedia so quickly, they may like to peruse this..
Wikipedia:About - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (CONTENT CRITERIA)
"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."
It ain't perfect but its one of the great successes of the net IMO.
Last edited:
MicroPilot
Veteran Member
So has the ozone hole been "fixed" because of the CFC ban?
