Do you think people take wikipedia for granted?

Really good question – and I think the answer may be yes.

However, I think that this, although negative subjectively now, is the way it will be more and more – we will share our information through these cooperative structures, and therefore they’ll be taken for granted because that’s the way it is.

And I’m kind of excited about that.

Well, I think it’s interesting that you’re asking that question on this website. The premise of fluther.com is that everyone is an expert at something, so this website can support a healthy exchange of ideas. Wikipedia is in essence the same idea. If you could combine the expertise of everyone you’d have all of the knowledge known to mankind.

So yes, I trust the information on wikipedia. I think that they do have an agenda though, which is to promote public knowledge.

Wikipedia is probably taken for granted, but isn’t that the point? In my opinion any easy, free access to a wide knowledge base will always be taken for granted. Maybe I just have little faith in humanity.

People tend to give wikipedia alot of shit because “anyone can edit any page” and thus the information may not be accurate or even blatantly false.

These people have clearly not ever tried to edit a wiki page.

Wikipedia may have been easy to troll back when it first came out, but most of the more important pages are locked from editing now anyway, many of them provide sources and references, and there is a huge cabal of hardcore editors who seemingly patrol every single page and instantly revert any edit that they don’t approve of or that doesn’t meet quality standards.

So yeah, I do think people take the usefulness of Wikipedia for granted.

EXACTLY what @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard said. It’s silly to be dismissive of wikipedia’s usefulness because it contains some errors. In fact I’m tired of using it as a source, only to have someone say “wikipedia has errors.” Blow me.

Yes, I believe we do. It has become way to useful to myself – daily. I come to the site a few times a day. I search “wiki” after I’m looking to specifically go to wikipedia

DONT SOURCE WIKI!!!
fucking hate dealing with that shit in school. There are a million legitimate sources at the bottom of wiki pages to back it up yet some teachers are so boreheaded and think its full of errors. Blah.

@uberbatman – I agree with statements that people shouldn’t source wiki, for many if not most things.

Citing to wiki is, essentially, not doing the research. It’s relying on the research work of others, and whenever making an assertion in an academic context, you should be familiar with the primary sources cited to.

@iamthemob is that not what the internet is there for? To help research go much quicker as apposed to sitting in a library for hours. Wiki just condenses it all nicely. Granted I generally use wiki as a jump off to find other sources but for teachers to be completely dismissive of it is BS IMO

@iamthemob But wiki is an excellent way to become familiar with the basics of a topic. If greater depth is needed, the sources are there. But if we’re just talking about, say, major events of WW I, there is no need for me to read a hundred pages to capture some dates and turning points. Wiki is great for getting a handle on things. Like the other day I used it to find various basic forms of nihilism. Good enough explanation for my purposes at the moment.

@cockswain – Agreed. And agreed also, @uberbatman – wiki shouldn’t be dismissed. And for general statements, I wouldn’t mind a move to accepting it as a source. The thing is as reliable a secondary source is, it’s always the responsibility of a researcher to double check the primary sources.

@iamthemob “Citing to wiki is, essentially, not doing the research. It’s relying on the research work of others,”

What? All research relies on the research work of others.

@chocolatechip – Read the last post – if you’re drawing on the underlying sources for a point, you should be checking to make sure that the sources say what you are claiming. If there is a claim that there are x percentage of the population who smoke regularly, and you’re citing to wikipedia without checking on the underlying sources, then you’ll be held responsible if there is an inaccuracy, or it’s out of date, or the statistic was related to something specific other than what you interpreted.

Wikipedia provides a shortcut to find where the information is, and to provide the well-settled facts regarding areas covered. But any treatise or broad-based secondary source needs to be checked each time it’s used.

I just donated to wiki again, not long ago. But yeah, most take it for granted. It’s a great project that should be supported further and improved. If teachers/profs find inaccuracies, they should do everyone a favor and correct them :)

@chocolatechip yes but it’s about getting close to the source, and adding to the consensus or offering a critique, rather than dependency on Chinese whispers and hearsay.

Wikipedia is about harnessing global intelligence. And it seems to work very well.