| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Should Wikis be regulated?; How much? Who decides? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 31 2006, 12:01 PM (499 Views) | |
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 31 2006, 12:01 PM Post #1 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
There's many "wiki's" out there now, hosted by the main wikipedia site. For example, Applepedia is a miniature wiki, just for Apple computers. You can read articles pertaining to anything about apple computers, from iPods to keyboard modifications. I think it's a great system. Individual users can easily contribute to the website, making the information as up-to-date and diverse as possible. It also has its own internal peer review, as the discussion section allows users to debate the content of the site, and edit the “official information” as needed. However, problems seem to come up. For example, one of the wikis I frequent was recently blackballed from the References/Links page of a company's website. The company produces software, which is the main subject of this wiki. It was pulled from their list because of the nature of the information. Some of the content related to software exploits one could take advantage of, which would make that user break the EULA it had with the company. Not only was the owner of this wiki charged with "distributing harmful information", the user who posted the information was, as well. In order to comply with the company’s requests, the admin. of the wiki wiped out that portion of the site, and all other sections that posted similar sensitive material. This is a very controversial topic, but what do you all think? Should any and all relevant information be fair game for posting in open source encyclopeidas, like Wikipedia, or should they be regulated? If so, by whom? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Jul 31 2006, 12:05 PM Post #2 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Wikis, by nature, have crap information. They are a good quick stop for finding out some stuff, but it should all be verified. They serve a purpose, and anyone who uses them should know that they are not authoratative. They're like blogs, rss, and other "mediums" that have emerged recently. You get what you pay for. They shouldn't be regulated. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 31 2006, 12:10 PM Post #3 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
What do you mean by "crap information"? Incorrect, or not helpful? As with any other information, I think one just needs to consider the source. If you check the discussion part of a Wiki, you can easily tell whether or not the information in the article is up for debate. I have yet to come across a Wiki article that has incorrect information, or debatable information that is not talked about to some length in its discussion. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Jul 31 2006, 12:17 PM Post #4 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Both - riddled with errors, and so not helpful. I've seen lots of mistakes in Wiki articles. Also, the amount of discussion usually has a lot to do with the popularity of the topic. An obscure topic would generate less discussion, and no one would know enough about it to refute bad information anyway. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jul 31 2006, 12:33 PM Post #5 |
|
MAMIL
|
As long as you know what you're getting, Wiki is a very useful resource. It's great for a quick idiots guide, or a potted biography of some historical clown or other. You wouldn't want to use it professionally, or anything, that would be kind of dumb. If I dig some nonsense out of Wikipedia, and use it to bolster my argument in this place, and someone who actually knows what he's talking about calls me on it, I might look a bit stupid, but what else is new? Nobody's going to war based on the prattlings of John D'Oh, are they, so it doesn't really matter. And to answer the question, leave it alone. It works fine. If you want something decent, buy a freaking book, you tightwad! God, I almost sound like an American. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jul 31 2006, 12:38 PM Post #6 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
That might start a war. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 31 2006, 12:41 PM Post #7 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Well, is this not the same as any other source? Any obscure subject is going to have a limited information source, and so any kind of peer review is going to be limited. What do you think would be a better source on the same plane as a Wiki? I mean, if you want to get, say, solid and credible support for your global warming argument, you'd go to Science magazine or something. But if you're looking for a general overview of a topic and need the most current information available, what else would you use? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jul 31 2006, 12:41 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Science/maths are pretty good on wiki. - comparable with Britannica.
I think you need some regulation to stop people defacing articles (and the wiki team seem to do that quite well) but in terms of genuine but possibly 'inappropriate' information well supressing information makes me very uneasy, i think in most instances (i.e. one cannot directly forsee dire consequences) exchange of information should be open. This seems to be much like the free speech arguments, it's just translated to cyberspace. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Jul 31 2006, 01:12 PM Post #9 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
One that's authoritative??
|
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 31 2006, 01:18 PM Post #10 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Have any specific examples? I'm asking, because I don't at all consider Wiki content to be "inferior" to other sources, it's just different. It's very up-to-date and current (which is great for computer-related information), it usually references its information so you can double-check its content, and it often contains more "practical" information than other sources. But I wouldn't mind comparing it to another resource to see how it measures up. Like Moonbat said, for science and math information, it's a very legit and helpful resource. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Jul 31 2006, 01:26 PM Post #11 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Depends on what type of wiki you're talking about. For Wikipedias, I would think that a good authoratative encyclopedia would be more accurate, and doing some independent research. I'm not knocking the medium. I use it. There's stuff I wouldn't even bother to look up if I couldn't do a quick and dirty search. All I'm saying is you get what you pay for. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 31 2006, 01:37 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
You do know that most British actors find the accent of the American South one of the easiest to master? We could start introducing you as our strange cousin from Alabama....
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jul 31 2006, 01:43 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
The Nature analysis suggests Britannica is not significantly better than wikipedia when it comes to scientific stuff. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/...ll/438890a.html I think it's worth a lot more than the nothing it costs. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Jul 31 2006, 01:55 PM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If you have access to it, 'AccessScience' online database is good, as it has not only encyclopedic articles, but latest research, updates, links to related topics, etc., and biographical data on it's contributors, so you know who is doing the writing. It's not free, subscription based, but lots of libraries offer it through their webpages. Geared to upper high school and beyond, so may not be comprehensive enough for your needs, but an excellent example of a source with good authority. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jul 31 2006, 01:58 PM Post #15 |
|
MAMIL
|
I could probably master a passable Southern drawl with a bit of practice. If my son continues to pick up the [Just kidding, New England people. ]
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Aug 1 2006, 04:19 PM Post #16 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
The Colbert Report does Wikipedia. Awesome. :lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHm0rGns4I&NR |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| katie | Aug 1 2006, 05:51 PM Post #17 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I don't know about regulating wikis ... but I definitely think winks should be regulated
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









]

12:14 AM Jul 11