Pleas don't cite wikipedia as a source for facts

[Sane Asylum]

Wiki isn't a bad place to start but like you said, then you have to confirm the validity of the statements made there. It's not the end all of the information but it's a good launching pad to give yourself an idea of where to dig deeper.

Exactly. And case in point is that the quote I reference in wikipedia states that nicotine can cause cancer but the study that is referenced stated that tobacco Smoke Pollution can cause cancer. That's a big difference to me, since I use nicotine but I don't smoke tobacco.

 

[supermarket]

There have been studies that have concluded that Wiki is approximately as accurate as conventional encyclopaedias, so I think it's an oversimplification to say "anyone can edit it so it must be full of lies..."

But yeah, I tend to think of Wiki as a useful starting point for research, rather than as a definitive source.

The evidence on nicotine and cancer seems inconclusive - it's certainly a cancer promoter, but whether it's carcinogenic is disputed. There's a decent amount of evidence that it is in vitro, but the epidemiology seems to point to there being a very low risk if there is a risk at all at clinically relevant doses.

I agree.

For some reason, people LOVE to parrot information. My whole life I've grown accustomed to people simply repeating what they hear, instead of thinking for themselves.

Most likely, the reason wikipedia is considered a "bad" source...is because you can't use it as a source for college papers. It makes perfect sense why you can't....what DOESNT make sense is people who say wikipedia isn't a valid source of information.

Wikipedia, for all PRACTICAL purposes, is a wonderful tool, and a wonderful source of information. I'd say that the vast majority of the time, the info on wiki is CORRECT.

It is simply NOT correct when people say "Anyone can edit wikipedia". Really? Go try to edit it...see how far you get.

Yes, it is possible for wiki to have incorrect information. That it why it is up to YOU to verify any info on wikipedia, if you see fit.

However, there is NOTHING wrong with citing wikipedia as a valid source of information on a MESSAGE BOARD. If you think the info linked is invalid, simply check the source from wiki, and then post your rebuttal or concern. Not a big deal.


Anyway, I get annoyed with people who constantly parrot information they hear/see, and calling wikipedia an invalid source for information is one of those things that drives me nuts.

 

[Racehorse]

Getting a Medical Degree from Wikipedia sure beats the conventional and rigorous methods that were available before the internet.

It saves the competitiveness of trying to get into med school, 10+ years of education, then residency, etc.

Most of all, Wikipedia does not require anyone to take and pass Organic Chemistry, which makes it the preferred route to getting an M.D. after your name and hanging out your shingle on internet forums.

 

[vaperature]

Exactly. And case in point is that the quote I reference in wikipedia states that nicotine can cause cancer but the study that is referenced stated that Tobacco Smoke Pollution can cause cancer. That's a big difference to me, since I use nicotine but I don't smoke tobacco.

Yes exactly. You certainly can't take Wiki at face value, but it was, after all, the faulty information on Wiki that started you on the path for the truth. You should seriously think about editing that Wiki page.

 

[klynnn]

It must be true it's on the internet.

 

[EvilZoe]

It must be true it's on the internet.

 

[mare ze dotes]

The last thing I used Wiki for was to look up the word, 'Derp'.

 

[EvilZoe]

The last thing I used Wiki for was to look up the word, 'Derp'.

You looked up "derp"? LOL


I guess I've been online too much to have realized that not everyone would just have gathered that info via osmosis.


Urban Dictionary would have been my choice were I going to a specific site, though. Normally, however, I would just toss it into Google.

 

[beckdg]

My complaint isn't about correcting wikipedia. It's about people using wikipedia as a valid source of fact.

Wikipedia can be a good place to start to establish facts by using the references but the references have to be checked out for validity. Here's a good summary about wikipedia:

What's Wrong with Wikipedia? § Harvard Guide to Using Sources

i was very impressed a few weeks ago. while waiting to speak with the principal at my sons elementary school, i overheard a 2nd or 3rd grade class in session in the library. they were being lectured on the very same subject as in that link.

elementary school - learning how to use citation and reputable sources. fantastic!

looks like the jig is up for us old fogies looking for an easy out on wikipedia, though. the kids ain't havin' it.

 

[DC2]

confirmed source of Cancer, it was on teh interweb so it must be trufax!

CAUSE OF CANCER - The Kids in the Hall - YouTube

Why am I not surprised you are a Kids in the Hall fan?

 

[suspectK]

looks like the jig is up for us old fogies looking for an easy out on wikipedia, though. the kids ain't havin' it.

I don't know.. When I was a kid, we could only have one-three intranet cites in our papers, but I always bet on my teacher not picking up the book I would pull a bogus cite from, to find out if it was real or not.

Why am I not surprised you are a Kids in the Hall fan?

I wish that show still existed... I was probably 8-yearsold and probably didn't understand any of the comedy in it, but I still watched it.

 

[EvilZoe]

We were the family who had the encyclopedia that everyone borrowed....lol

 

[mare ze dotes]

We were the family who had the encyclopedia that everyone borrowed....lol

I remember those. Me too. They were great. I think It was "time life" and my parents bought them one a month. I am glad they got to Zebra before I learned to read.

 

[DC2]

I remember those. Me too. They were great. I think It was "time life" and my parents bought them one a month.

I have a dictionary, a thesaurus, and a synonym finder in my computer desk.
I have not opened any of them since I got an internet.

I really should recycle them or something.

 

[Sucker_dad]

I see your point and I agree that nicotine use and smoking are completely different things. as we all know there are a lot of ways to get nicotine that do not involve smoking. It's just that, as vapers who need this product we should do everything in our power to correct misinformation whenever possible. If we do any less, then who do we blame when we cannot get any nicotine or the cost for it is so high that the average Joe cannot afford it?

 

[Nermal]

So, wikipedia is a fine source as long as you verify everything in it. Heck, you might just as well cite Nermal as a source, but with the caveat that you have to verify everything I say.

 

[Jman8]

Okay, so if Wikipedia isn't a valid resource for citing facts, what is? Please provide an answer that all humans will agree on, and that is accessible to everyday people.

Good luck!!

 

[suspectK]

Toronto has Ford as a mayor, still. Why can't everything on Wikipedia be factual? I would post the best interview from him, but I'm sure it will be deleted..and get me in trouble.

 

[DC2]

Okay, so if Wikipedia isn't a valid resource for citing facts, what is? Please provide an answer that all humans will agree on, and that is accessible to everyday people.

Good luck!!

Nermal?

.....

 

[EvilZoe]

We still have Funk and Wagnell's although language has been extended quite a bit since this edition was published...lol


Lost the encyclopedia in a house fire in 89, not that they'd do much good NOW...lol