Hey. I'm a teacher. I love Wikidpedia. For one thing, were you aware that it is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on major things, and almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica on minor ones?
....and that since the time of the study that found this, the errors that Wikepedia had have been fixed, but the ones in the Encyclopedia Britannica have not?
Mind you, I don't allow my students to actually CITE Wikipedia, but then I don't allow them to cite the Encyclopedia Britannica, either. But...Wiki is a pretty darned good place to start research. It doesn't take very long to confirm or deny accuracy; you just check out the quoted sources.
Oh, well...even my sons avoided shooting at PEOPLE. Indeed, even though they AIMED at the neighbor's cat, they knew good and well that they weren't going to HIT it. ;-)
I'm not surprised - a lot of spam filters filter out subject lines with that and similar male prescription names. And I suspect such filters can go through the content of an email and filter email which has the same words too.
I wonder if this one will go through to the list...
A study done by the peer-reviewed journal 'Nature." They compared the two by taking articles from both and sending them to a group of experts in their various fields. They got 42 reviews back, and in them, they found 8 major errors, four from each source, and while Wiki had 162 minor errors, the EB had 123.
There is a truism in computer programming that goes something like 'many eyes smooth bugs' or something like that...the idea is that Wiki is constantly being updated by folks who know what they are talking about. If someone comes in and fiddles with an article so that it is inaccurate, then the folks who DO know what they are talking about come BACK in and fix it. That seems to be the way it actually works. As I mentioned earlier, those major errors that Nature found? Wiki has fixed those. EB hasn't. The Wiki contributors aren't quite as worried about spell-checking, it seems, though.
Which would you rather have, an error set in stone that can never be repaired, or a system that can, and is, constantly monitored by those who are interested (i.e., the experts) so that errors are quickly caught and fixed?
The thing is, you just hit one of my hot buttons. ;-) The knee jerk reaction to Wikipedia seems to be "oh, it can't possibly be trustworthy because..."
When the fact is, it is as trustworthy as any other encyclopedia out there, and FAR more extensive. For instance, if you want to find out about the Antelope Valley Poppy Festival, do you think you would find it in the Encyclopedia Britanica?
Not a chance.
But you'll find out all about it in Wikipedia.
....but I'm sure that only people in the Antelope Valley care spit diddley about the Poppy Festival (well, those and also tourists who come out to see literally miles of California poppies covering the ground, anyway..) ...but...what about something that might be of more interest to a student looking something up for school? A linguist, perhaps? Try looking "Zaparos" up in the Encyclopedia Britanica.
Nuttin.
But Wikipedia will tell you all about it; it's a language spoken by a very few Ecuadorian natives who are struggling to keep their culture and speech alive.
OK, I'm sorry....this is so completely off topic...but you really did hit a hot button there. ;-)
(grin) you sound like you've had some experience with this.
Well, whoever mentioned Wiki hit one of my hot buttons :-)
No idea.
I wanted to know about something and looked on Wiki and it was wrong.
...
"DING!"
Repetition.
A reference to a popular British game.
Look it up.
Well, yes. But not with a spud gun, I admit. With a longbow.
They hear the whisper of the string as the arrow is loosed.
The extreme experience is when we were once - well, it doesn't matter where (look up Two Sisters' Lawn), when were four experienced bowmen stood round a rabbit, each about a yard from it. They all loosed at once and the animal disappeared. Not long afterwards a row of rabbits appeared on the brow of the little hill giving two-eared signs to all the humans ...
So, this proves that Wikipedia is as trustworthy as the Encyclopedia Britanica..and while you might not like EB either, it certainly proves that Wikepedia is a pretty good deal; certainly worth more than an instant dismissal simply because it IS Wikipedia. Besides, unlike the EB (to which I subscribe, heaven alone knows why...) Wiki is free.
But 'those who don't' seem to have had almost no impression upon the overall accuracy of Wikipedia.
I would trust the expertise of, say, a geologist to make certain that an entry on geology is accurate. Wouldn't you?
Eventually, yes. They are. The funny thing about Wikipedia is that the true experts in their fields tend to take a proprietary interest in what Wikipedia has to SAY about them. So they take care of things. As well, Wales has recently instituted a process whereby an entry, if it seems to have been 'hijacked' by stupid people, will be referred to recognized experts and frozen.
What did you look up? ...
And if it was incorrect, you could have fixed it. That's the beauty of the thing. We are all responsible for it.
You use a longbow? I admit, I haven't held a bow in my hands for close onto forty years, but there was a time when my father and I would hunt with a bow; my one and only buck was taken with a hunting bow. Not a 'longbow' if you are talking about what I think you are, but a pulley system type. We didn't even try for rabbits. ;-)
OK. Someone recently died. I entered her name and looked to see what was said on various obituaries, including Wiki. I was flattered to see that a picture I took of her in 1989 was being used but surprised to see that it was attributed to an international organisation. Because of that many other obits gave the same attribution, including the Times (London) newspaper. I told them and they apologised and are sending me payment.
I did alter it. I was surprised that there was no assessment of my authority - this is a great weakness. I have the rights of the picture, I still have the negative and contact prints.
When I looked a few days later my name had been removed and the original attribution inserted. I edited it again, I haven't looked since to see what's happened, my point is that it's too easy to edit and it can be done with authority or without, mischievously or otherwise. That is a great weakness.
...
Yes, but not often. After my breast cancer surgery I couldn't pull a respectable poundage so I used a grandson's, which my husband had made for him when he was about eight. As I regained strength I broke it and more or less gave up.
We don't hunt with bows (hawks are far more efficient for rabbits :-) We do - I used to do - target shooting, as did my husband. A grand daughter came to live with us on Friday, I was pleased to see that she loaded a nice bow and splendid tooled leather arrow bag in the car with her other belongings. Our arrow bag is a simple linen one. We have bows because we're involved in historical events - although 100% non-combatant. Modern bows aren't allowed even if anyone wanted to use one. Agincourt was won quite nicely thank you using the English longbow!
misattribution is an ubiquitous sin; happens all the time to everybody. ...but how neat that you could find that obituary on wiki--I'll bet you that the EB didn't have it!
Well, it works like this: the information was put up. You corrected it. If you had given them erroneous information in YOUR turn, someone else would have fixed it, until eventually the right information would 'stick.' Sounds very sloppy, but it...well...works.
which is why Wikipedia has such a high accuracy rating. Everybody is responsible.
You need to look again...and let the editors know the problem.
Oh, very cool...and yes, it was. At least one longbow sharpshooter ensured that one!
From looking at Wiki articles, I notice a place where they will mark an article "unsupported" and remove it if the statements aren't supported by published references. If you can send them the information that the Times apologized and are paying you for the use of the photo, especially if the Times published an apology (which they ought to have, though it might be on page umpteen in tiny type); that would be published proof to cite.
Yep...of course, since I don't have a clue who died, I could be wrong. Someone famous enough.... On the other hand, maybe not.
So change it again.
Indeed, in terms of Wikipedia and open source coding, it does just that. ;-) We aren't talking about elections, Mary.
Actually, they ARE. Wikipedia has a 'thing...' if an entry keeps getting changed back and forth, the editors step in and freeze it---and request confirmation and cites. It's not total anarchy over there, y'know.
I've no idea if there was an apology, we don't get newspapers. We were staying with some people who knew our interests and showed me the obit. I knew immediately it was my picture :-) It was on the urging of others that I contacted the Times.
To be honest I wasn't really bothered, it was only after I discovered that lots of other magazines were using it and giving the wrong attribution - including one of my publisher's - that I became irritated!
A lot of fuss about nothing really - but it does illustrate the weakness of Wik.
If you will give it a chance...and do what Richard suggest, you'll also see the strength of Wiki. I don't blame you a bit for getting PO'd about the misattributions. But here's the thing; if it were EB, you COULDN'T fix it. With Wiki, you can.
I don't consult such general sources for information. When I want to know something I rely on my own experience or consult peer reveiwed research. It's the only reliable way.
I did mention, didn't I, that I don't allow my students to CITE Wikipedia, right? It is as accurate as EB, and far more extensive...and a very good place to *begin* one's research. Most articles have links TO peer reviewed sources. Even those that do not have additional search terms to use. I"m going to qoute Wales, the creater of Wiki, on this (remember, this is a QUOTE, not my words!)
"For God's sake, you are college students. Don't cite an encyclopedia!"
Now me, I'm a high school teacher, but the principle still works, minus the profanity. One of the first things I do with my students is give them a week of lessons on research, internet and library. How and when to use Wikipedia (and other encyclopedias, online or not) takes up three days of that week. It's why I defend it as strongly as I have. It's a great resource for research, but it is more like a card catalogue than a final citable source. ;-)
We friends now?
Diana
...by the way, to get this thing back on topic for the group, does anybody have a really GOOD pattern for gloves out there?
...and my daughter has Reynauds. Her gloves have to fit well but absolutely not be too tight, be of wool or other natural fiber (synthetic yarn gloves can actually be colder than bare fingers!) and she needs lots of 'em. I need a pattern that will work with yarn of all sizes.
"Diana" wrote in news:C3X7j.10846$rB1.541@trnddc03:
the Knitter's Handy Book of Patterns by Ann Budd has a glove pattern, any size, any yarn,any gauge. i use it all the time for my open finger gloves lee
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.