Pleas don't cite wikipedia as a source for facts

[beckdg]

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.

tell me about it. i tried to add information about china hall and white hall some time ago.... Bristol College, Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i lived on the street china hall (incorrectly named in the article as white hall) is facing down for half my life. the place was a stop on the underground railroad, a college, a college for black folks after they were freed, a hospital, etc., etc.. but you won't find that or the fact that it was supposed to be renovated about 10 years ago but was deemed "too costly". currently, the center of the building is only a tourist attraction for local hobos, drug addicts and children with a death wish. the east and west wings are both dedicated to 3 story apartment living.

white hall as far as far as i've ever discerned was identical to china hall, but located somewhere between china hall and bristol. best i could ever gather is on the current site where Rohm and Haas bristol plant is located or their dumping site between river road and the delaware river that was cleaned up thanks to the epa about 7 years ago. it's now a properly covered and vented dump that's fenced in properly finally.

there's a lot of history to that little building on the corner of (three names, same road) shadyside and minot aves which dead end just yards before the delaware river on the PECO grounds as bank street. there's a lot of history to the actual white hall as well.

 

[hazarada]

I've tried correcting wikipedia a few times, each time whatever i wrote was deleted the next day... call me a conspiracy theorist but i got a feeling some parties with agendas are keeping their greasy fingers on wiki to sway public opinion about certain things.

 

[Rocketpunk]

I saw an amazing video on Youtube over the evolution of the umlaut page on Wiki. It was done by a student who recalled every single edit from over several years and replayed them in speed motion. You got to see the synthesis and growth of the idea and concept in realtime. Amazing!

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.

 

[tnt56]

Sad! I argued online with some fool a couple of weeks ago. He tried to claim that e-cigs produce carbon monoxide and pointed to a wiki page on smoke! I told him that maybe that would be true if I was setting e-juice on fire!

I always tell them to hold their breath on a cold winter day. I don't need their carbon monoxide with my health problems. They see smoke and vapor. Well so do I. (oh well lost one job because of that) Even your exhale from breathing is mostly carbon monoxide.

 

[Ryan1888]

I have not read through the whole thread but will say that for the most part I agree.
Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate 90% of the time though.

University reports would have been a breeze if Wikipedia was a useable source though.

 

[Rickb119]

The evidence on nicotine and cancer seems inconclusive - it's certainly a cancer promoter

So is sugar, and the evidence is very conclusive. Cancer's Sweet Tooth

 

[Sundodger]

I have not read through the whole thread but will say that for the most part I agree.
Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate 90% of the time though.

University reports would have been a breeze if Wikipedia was a useable source though.

Well considering that I doubt 90% of all articles are accurate and 10% totally accurate, then I must surmise that 90% of any certain article is accurate and 10% of same given article is inaccurate. It's the 10% that can give vaping a bad name, or depending on what the article is about could kill someone. No thanks. I look at it for stupid things but don't trust it for anything important.

 

[Ref Minor]

I always tell them to hold their breath on a cold winter day. I don't need their carbon monoxide with my health problems. They see smoke and vapor. Well so do I. (oh well lost one job because of that) Even your exhale from breathing is mostly carbon monoxide.

It's carbon dioxide that is produced in exhalant breath. Carbon monoxide is a different and far more poisonous compound.

Ref
BSc Chemistry

 

[McVapor]

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.

I love you . I will be referring people to this post in and out of ECF. This is a perfect example of why people should not believe everything they hear or see. Too often people pull random quotes and the first thing I ask them is: where was this polled? year? country? demographic? age group? I find it baffling that people believe everything they hear

 

[EvilZoe]

It's carbon dioxide that is produced in exhalant breath. Carbon monoxide is a different and far more poisonous compound.

Ref
BSc Chemistry

Maybe they're cars....lol

 

[Coldrake]

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

Actually anyone can edit wikipedia, it's quite simple. I just changed the word "therefore" to "consequently". It took all of about 10 seconds.

 

[HauntedMyst]

Wikipedia is an entirely credible source. I know, I create and edit articles all the time. The one about Christopher Columbus spotting the new world and riding in the last two miles on a giant wave on his surf board, that was me. And the one about Abe Lincoln charging through Gettysburg with just two axes in his hands and beheading thousands before killing General Lee, that was me. At its all well documented research. At least half of my references come from The Big Bathroom Book of History and that's as solid as solid comes.

 

[dam718]

I won't lie, I use Wikipedia all the time to get very general information...

Anyone with a high school education, and most certainly anyone who is college educated should know full well that a credible source is usually peer reviewed, and written by experts of the topic being studied.

I think it's a shame for us to tell kids, or anyone for that matter, that Wikipedia is not a credible source... While, by definition, that may be true, in that we would not credit the Wiki article as the source, I believe that telling them it's not a credible source will deter them from even looking at the article. Something I think is fantastic about Wikipedia is that they do, for the most part, have a little bibliography at the end of every article, with links to where the information was obtained.

Those source links are a gold mine for anyone doing legitimate research. So go ahead and open that article, read it... Get a decent idea of what you're looking for, then start digging through those links. Sift through the gold mine and you may find some peer reviewed information that CAN be used as a credible source.

The OP has proven that even an inaccurate Wiki article can introduce a reader to an abundance of very good and accurate information.

I typically wouldn't cite an internet article if I were conducting research at all... Every professor I've ever had frowned on it, and would limit our internet citations on research papers. In fact, I believe it was a school policy that no more than 2 internet citations could be used on a research paper. I bent that rule a lot by reading a book, magazine, medical journal, court proceedings, legal journals, etc... on the internet, and finding out the publishing information for the actual printed version...

Anyway... While I agree that Wikipedia is not always accurate, and we shouldn't quote it as fact... I am not a fan of suggesting that we shouldn't use it at all...

 

[Sane Asylum]

I never stated that we shouldn't 'use' wikipedia at all. I stated that we shouldn't cite it as source for facts.

 

[dam718]

I never stated that we shouldn't 'use' wikipedia at all. I stated that we shouldn't cite it as source for facts.

I know... My kids teachers are telling them to never look at Wikipedia... I forgot to mention that

 

[tnt56]

It's carbon dioxide that is produced in exhalant breath. Carbon monoxide is a different and far more poisonous compound.

Ref
BSc Chemistry

Sorry my bad. But I still don't want to breath it.
And it's the only way to get the ANTZ I was around to hush and leave me and my vaping alone.

 

[EddardinWinter]

It's carbon dioxide that is produced in exhalant breath. Carbon monoxide is a different and far more poisonous compound.

Ref
BSc Chemistry

Methinks you missed his humor in the post...


Edit:
Or, I give way too much credit for ironic absurdity....

Tapped out

 

[tnt56]

Methinks you missed his humor in the post...


Edit:
Or, I give way too much credit for ironic absurdity....

Tapped out

You are correct Ed.

 

[DaveP]

I view Wikipedia as a source for comparison with other sources. Never use only one source for information (unless you are just looking casually) when there are thousands available on any given subject.

Doctors hate it when patients talk about what they read on the internet about medications or conditions. My doctor made a face and told me I couldn't rely on what I read on the internet. When I told him that I usually go to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/atoz/s/ and Mayo Clinic, and other teaching university sites, he was fine with my choices. He wouldn't have liked Wiki-anything.

 

[Nunnster]

Usually, The information on Wikipedia is valid. However, when it comes to hot button topics, such as nicotine, people with an agenda can go in and add "information". That being said, Wikipedia has gotten a lot better about trying to police these people, and has put some measures into place to try and stop these people. Usually, when something is incorrect people go in and fix it. No, it shouldn't be your only source of info, but often its a good start to find other sources of info, especially if other sources are cited at the bottom or within the text.