Pleas don't cite wikipedia as a source for facts

[WattWick]

Wikipedia is not so much a source of information in itself. It's more like a cross between a source for sources for information and Readers Digest. With emphasis on the latter. The Readers Digest version (article) may well be lacking or give the wrong impressions. The source is where the crunchy bits are found.

If someone change it, then someone else with an agenda change it back, you can always have it reviewed by third parties and marked as "disputed".

 

[generic mutant]

I sometimes find I learn more about a subject (or at least the impassioned disputes surrounding it) reading the talk pages than the article itself. Takes a while... and sometimes a toll on your faith in humanity.

 

[GREEN ZOMBIE]

lmao, I love reading these things, and all the inconclusive studies based on fact... HAHAHA!!!

 

[crxess]

But I read it on the internet.......It must be true.

 

[Nermal]

Nermal?

.....

Sure, so long as you verify every bit of it, just like wikipedia.

PS: Nermal is my cat's name.

 

[generic mutant]

...
PS: Nermal is my cat's name.

That needn't matter! The people have spoken!

Nermal for president!

 

[Steam Turbine]

Once again, I just came across another poster citing wickipedia as a source. This one was for facts about nicotine. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but as stated on the wikipedia site, anyone can post and edit entries on the site and as a result, the information is not validated.

One of the 'facts' stated about nicotine on wikipedia that jumped out at me was:

Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases

Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I looked at the reference and searched and found the site:

http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v12/i46/7428.htm

Yep, that statement was on the site and was referenced to a study on pancreatic cancer in mice. So I found the site with the study:

Chronic pancreatic inflammation induced b... [Am J Gastroenterol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

Two things stood out:

RESULTS:

In 58% (7/12) of the animals, exposure to 160 mg/m3 TSP cigarette smoke induced a chronic pancreatic inflammatory process with fibrosis and scarring of pancreatic acinar structures.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study provides experimental evidence of morphological pancreatic damage induced by the inhalation of cigarette smoke, which is likely to be mediated by alterations of acinar cell function.


So from this study, someone concludes that 'nicotene' causes cancer when in fact, the study was about 'smoking'. And if you do a google, it's amazing how many other sites use the information from the wikipedia site as 'facts' about nicotine. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct.

What's great about Wikipedia is exactly what you complain about. If you think that something is wrong.... You have the power to correct it. You can correct it and then click on the "talk" tab and explain why you corrected it. If what you say makes sense, the Wikipedia community will agree with you.

IMHO Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia in the world.

 

[Ryedan]

Sure, so long as you verify every bit of it, just like wikipedia.

PS: Nermal is my cat's name.

Well, in that case, Nermal is now my go to information source. Everyone knows cats know everything

 

[EddardinWinter]

Well, in that case, Nermal is now my go to information source. Everyone knows cats know everything

Truer words were never spoken...



Tapped out

 

[Rocketpunk]

Please don't use the word "smurf" anymore because I dislike when people use the word "smurf".

 

[EvilZoe]

Please don't use the word "smurf" anymore because I dislike when people use the word "smurf".

That's because you're a hypersensitive smurf, smurf.

 

[mare ze dotes]

Next time when you question a resource....Lets call it 'Nermal'. The cat of internet reason.

 

[DC2]

Next time when you question a resource....Lets call it 'Nermal'. The cat of internet reason.

Some doofus: "So I read yesterday that there is anti-freeze in them thar thingies"
Proper reply: "And do you really think that's Nermal?"

 

[EvilZoe]

Some doofus: "So I read yesterday that there is anti-freeze in them thar thingies"
Proper reply: "And do you really think that's Nermal?"

"I didn't realize there was salt in this...oh, you meant some OTHER nontoxic antifreeze?"

 

[Baldr]

People who argue "Anyone can edit wiki, so everything there is wrong" aren't paying attention. It's not perfect, but it's remarkably accurate. If you need in depth detail, wiki isn't going to be your final stop. (But you might start there as it will usually lead you to more detailed studies on the subject.) If you are looking for a basic explanation of darn near anything, wiki is ideal.

That "Anyone can edit it at any time" thing is true - but when people fill it with garbage, it tends to get fixed within minutes. Feel free to try it. Add a bunch of nonsense to a page and see how long it takes before it is corrected.

 

[beckdg]

Please don't use the word "smurf" anymore because I dislike when people use the word "smurf".

well isn't that smurfin' fantastic. now i have to smurfin' smurf what i smurf. SMURF IT! I'm smurfin' outta here.

 

[EvilZoe]

People who argue "Anyone can edit wiki, so everything there is wrong" aren't paying attention. It's not perfect, but it's remarkably accurate. If you need in depth detail, wiki isn't going to be your final stop. (But you might start there as it will usually lead you to more detailed studies on the subject.) If you are looking for a basic explanation of darn near anything, wiki is ideal.

That "Anyone can edit it at any time" thing is true - but when people fill it with garbage, it tends to get fixed within minutes. Feel free to try it. Add a bunch of nonsense to a page and see how long it takes before it is corrected.

It's just a little bit more effort to follow the sources to check THEM out and cite THEM, provided they're credible.

Citing Wikipedia just seems lazy to me.

 

[beckdg]

check this out...

A caution before citing Wikipedia
As with any source, especially one of unknown authorship, you should be wary and independently verify the accuracy of Wikipedia information if possible.

Source... Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i wonder if it's reliable.

 

[Sundodger]

What's great about Wikipedia is exactly what you complain about. If you think that something is wrong.... You have the power to correct it. You can correct it and then click on the "talk" tab and explain why you corrected it. If what you say makes sense, the Wikipedia community will agree with you.

IMHO Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia in the world.

No where as easy as what you and others are describing. I've been fighting for years over an article about my father. He played pro-football (NFL) and they have misinformation about what team he played for and show him playing one year for a team he never played for. I've sent them links to the team he played for showing the years played, his induction in the teams Hall of Fame and the years cited there. Team photo's from the year in question, newspaper articles with his name as a starter during the year in question. Every time I change it they change it back saying that the pro football data base says what I'm saying isn't right so they go off what some dweeb with a data base typo somewhere sells to them.
Overall it's a good idea, just like gun powder was for the Chinese, until someone figured out how to use it to launch projectiles with it and kill mass numbers of spear carriers.

 

[mare ze dotes]

Wikipediaism. Wikipediaish.