Wiki Me This, Wiki Me That ...

[Spee]

Over time, I've noticed that Wikipedia is used frequently as a reference in various ThaiVisa Forum posts. At times, there is discussion on whether or not Wikipedia can be trusted as reliable information, or whether it is just anyone writing whatever they want and espousing it as fact.

A friend gave me a link to a terrific website, at which I found this interesting monologue by the founder of Wikipedia:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jimmy_w..._wikipedia.html

Enjoy!

[mrt273nva]

"The future of all human knowledge compiled by the world"

The power of that statement needs some time to reflect upon. Wikipedia is an incredibly brilliant idea that has thus far worked. I love it.

[PhilHarries]

I think Wiki is fine for general knowledge and information but for any serious research at least two other sources should be used for comparison.

[dave111223]

Most facts on Wikipedia have citations, so you can track down where the info came from.

For the purposes of forum discussion i think the Wikipedia is plenty reliable.

[Wrong Turn]

Most facts on Wikipedia have citations, so you can track down where the info came from.

For the purposes of forum discussion i think the Wikipedia is plenty reliable.

True.

As long as the info is not political or on a controversial topic. And the bibliography/source notes at the bottom are also very helpful in checking.

[terrier123]

Most facts on Wikipedia have citations, so you can track down where the info came from.

For the purposes of forum discussion i think the Wikipedia is plenty reliable.

True.

As long as the info is not political or on a controversial topic. And the bibliography/source notes at the bottom are also very helpful in checking.

Fascinating. Although 3 years old, the content is obviously still current and appropriate. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis and a lot of my questions were answered. Long time since I listened to someone talk for 20 minutes and kept me interested.

[12DrinkMore]

Fascinating. Although 3 years old, the content is obviously still current and appropriate. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis and a lot of my questions were answered. Long time since I listened to someone talk for 20 minutes and kept me interested.

Wiki is GREAT! The content is constantly being revised and updated. And you too can join in! I can browse around for hours on end, putting in phrases that pop into mind.

[kmart]

Wiki is fine, but the Uncyclodepia is even better!

[Spee]

Most facts on Wikipedia have citations, so you can track down where the info came from.

For the purposes of forum discussion i think the Wikipedia is plenty reliable.

True.

As long as the info is not political or on a controversial topic. And the bibliography/source notes at the bottom are also very helpful in checking.

Fascinating. Although 3 years old, the content is obviously still current and appropriate. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis and a lot of my questions were answered. Long time since I listened to someone talk for 20 minutes and kept me interested.

For me, the most fascinating part seems to be yet to come. If I interpreted the presentation correctly, the future is universal textbooks which are available for free to anyone in the world with the only requirement being internet access.

IMHO, a perfect place to start is with subjects like mathematics and music, for which there are only facts and the equations and notes are already in a universal language. Besides the broad dispersion of basic educational materials, there is also the potential of huge cost savings for books, not to mention the environment "savings" by lowering requirements for paper, fuel to make the paper, polluting by-products, etc.

If any government would have the balls to censor these kinds of wiki-books, then we would soon know who friends and enemies are.

As far as politics and controversy go, I think those aspects were covered in the presentation. So long as the Wiki leaders are able to maintain the concept of "neutrality," then the potential should remain unlimited.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Spee

[Bangyai]

Most facts on Wikipedia have citations, so you can track down where the info came from.

For the purposes of forum discussion i think the Wikipedia is plenty reliable.

True.

As long as the info is not political or on a controversial topic. And the bibliography/source notes at the bottom are also very helpful in checking.

Agreed, I use it a lot and have found it reliable. However, as you point out, if the subject matter is political or contraversial it can become unreliable and one sided. Keep cross referencing !

[PeaceBlondie]

I use it for lots of things now. We once paid a fortune for a hard-cover set of current encyclopedias, as my parents and grandparents did, back to the 1911 or 1917 Britannica. Working class Yanks could buy one volume per week of Funk&Wagnall or similar lower-quality sets. But the volume of schhtufff now available on Wiki boggles even the finest mind. Much faster than googling through a million hits. There are specialty online encyclopediae (plural, right) for lots of things. GAMEO http://www.gameo.org/ will tell you Anabaptist history that wiki may overlook

[RakJungTorlae]

So. With out that Wiki-P site TV wouldn’t really be interesting. Is that what your are saying???

The last info I looked at on that site was how to abstract certain remedy form a certain plant. very helpful

or what that youtube??

[bannork]

I like it but they do make some errors, for instance in their biography of Pumpuang Duangjan they say she was born in the north of Thailand.Since when has Supanburi been in the north? And they say the King came to her funeral, but I'm sure it was Princess Sirindhon (Prathep to Thais) who presided over the cremation.

As an aside, I like the new but expensive Bangkok Post on Sundays, but as anyone noticed that the comic strips in colour on Sunday are rarely as funny as on other days?

[GuestHouse]

Wiki is like any other secondary source of information - it is only as reliable as the person who entered the data. Wikipedia is not alone in this - Your News Paper, the Television News, the book you are reading, the guy down the pub and anything you read on ThaiVisa.

Where I think Wikipedia does win, is the imediacy of access to information and the broad spectrum of contributors - Wikipedia, like all good references, also gives a reference to the source data.

So for example.

If you where brought up in the UK and were taught that Julius Caesar landed in Britain and proclaimed 'Veni Vidi Vici' - you can go through life believing that is true OR you can go to the primary source (Caesar himself – and read his own writing in Commentarii de Bello Gallico) to find out what you where taught at school was fiction.

The issue is not then that Wiki, or any other secondary source is inaccurate/accurate, rather do you personally have the intellectual curiosity to examine what you are told and to investigate further. Much of that is personal character, a lot is education, and for me a definition of one of the keys to what I regard as a ‘good education’.

Wiki I think leads those who are so minded to look and read further – I think that is a real strength.

[dingdongrb]

I use it for lots of things now. We once paid a fortune for a hard-cover set of current encyclopedias, as my parents and grandparents did, back to the 1911 or 1917 Britannica. Working class Yanks could buy one volume per week of Funk&Wagnall or similar lower-quality sets. But the volume of schhtufff now available on Wiki boggles even the finest mind. Much faster than googling through a million hits. There are specialty online encyclopediae (plural, right) for lots of things. GAMEO http://www.gameo.org/ will tell you Anabaptist history that wiki may overlook

Dam_n PB you had to bring me to tears again, didn't you. Mentioning encyclopedias reminded me of a set I bought back in the 70s at a garage sale. I paid $25 for a complete set thinking this was a steal. I had them for about 10 years (or until the Internet started growing) and then I decided to dump them at a yard sale I was having. I sold them for $10 thinking that having them for that many years and only losing $15 was a great deal.... Needless to say it was a couple years later that I went looking for my collection of 'Silver Certificates' (about 20 of them) and realized that I had placed them in the encyclopedia 'M' for money to keep them pressed. I am sure someone will eventually find them and it'll bring a smile to their face. I just hope they don't think they are ordinary $1 bills and go spending them....

[dingdongrb]

Have you ever wiki'ed 'Wikipedia'?

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

[Spee]

Wiki is like any other secondary source of information - it is only as reliable as the person who entered the data.

This is a correct statement, IMHO. However, the Wiki folks do cross-check and correct their data. Also, where data is incomplete or not fully traceable, they make a statement to that effect.

From an educational standpoint, I find it to be welcome relief from the elementary and high school textbooks which have become corrupted with liberal socialist opinions over the last 40 years, rather than simply teaching the facts.

I would also agree that not all textbooks and encyclopedias accurately document the way things actually happened. When at uni, I was lucky to have a history professor whose specialty was doing factual historical research to correct false statements, claims and opinions in textbooks. The guy had some great stories. He was sort of a pre-internet version of snopes.com.