"Fun" with wikipedia (and Jason Statham)

[tacticslion]

So, saw a brief preview of the upcoming move with Jason Statham ([url=http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=41169]Fifthfiend should be happy (]Safe[/url)), and I decided to check it out.

As it turns out, it seems that someone had fun with the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_(2012_film)) (third sentence under "plot"). :raise: Even provided a citation for it! The "[3]." It goes to wikipedia's link on Prostitution.

Anyway, this, boys and girls, is why Wikipedia isn't a viable source for your research papers.

So... anyone here have some sort of editor status and wanna change that?

Alternatively: discuss - does wikipedia need more trolls/does it count as a viable source?

[A Zarkin' Frood]

So... anyone here have some sort of editor status and wanna change that?


Why don't you do it? Unless you fucked with the 'pedia previously your IP will not be banned.

Wikipedia is mostly viable, as long as you aren't dumb enough to believe things that are obviously bullshit. Wikipedia linking to itself as a source isn't really something it should do, but I don't see why this is a big deal. It's most likely not a troll, but an editor that wasn't too bright. Not like it's outright wiki-vandalism or anything, so that's probably why it hasn't been "caught" yet.

[Loyal]

Wikipedia itself isn't a source. You use it as a source to find sources, and then you go out and find those sources and decide whether they're viable.

[Bells]

I'll be honest with ya, i've actually never found a serious, important, Wikipedia article with any real meaningful alterations or changes or just flat out wrong information that lasted more than a couple of hours... i've seem sourced nuances and a lot of material with no citations... but an actually broken article with bad data, it's not something i recall finding.

And, to be fair, is a lot easier to pull a prank on a wikipedia Article of a Jason Statham movie then it would be, perhaps, to do the same on the Main Warner Brothers Studio article or perhaps, even someone like Bruce Lee...

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Anyway, this, boys and girls, is why Wikipedia isn't a viable source for your research papers.


I have a math book sitting in my lap right now.
If I turn to a page and write in the margins "2+2=5" does that make the book an invalid source of information?

[Aldurin]

I have a math book sitting in my lap right now.
If I turn to a page and write in the margins "2+2=5" does that make the book an invalid source of information?

This. Also the fact that it's a overwrite of the summary of a movie that hasn't officially released yet makes it easier to get away with, though I doubt it will last til' Friday. For a lot of the more popular pages (generic science stuff and the like) will ooze with sources and is at worst a good way to orient yourself with the subject.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Overreaction much there Tactics? So somebody made an edit on a little known page about a little known movie that probably hasn't had much traffic and all of a sudden all of wikipedias reliability is thrown into doubt? Please.

[Bells]

well to be honest about it the "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is as old as wikipedia itself...

Although, personally, i think it streams more from the "Copy the full text of the page" crowd than from the "Use the page as a basis to form an opinion on" crowd

[tacticslion]

My point is not that Wikipedia is worthless: far from it, though I can see how such a thing would be taken.

Rather: check the daggum sources. Don't rely on Wikipedia as the be-all end all. Many students I had were really keen on doing so (and merely referencing the sources Wikipedia had). Point in fact, the source itself doesn't claim to lead to Wikipedia. It claims to link elsewhere. It does not.

Wikipedia is a very useful tool, but only if you get the fact that it's imperfect and able to be abused. This one joke (relatively obscure as it is) doesn't ruin all Wikipedia forever, but it does highlight a fact that I've run into repeatedly: Wikipedia gets changed. Often. And not always for the better.

For the record, K-Resh: yes, your math book is no longer a valid source (presupposing it's a print error, not written in by a user) insomuch as it continues to claim 2+2=5*. However the only reason you know that the book is wrong is because you have a slew other sources - starting from gradeschool - telling you otherwise. My problem* with Wikipedia is that even now I get people telling me they "read it on Wikipedia" and don't do any further research beyond that. They stop at Wikipedia. And that's terrible.

Reference the article itself: I just found it slightly annoying (and such a thing is definitely a silly, but purposeful joke, complete with making up fake names for articles, and creating self-referential links). And, to date, every edit I've ever made at Wikipedia has been reverted (regardless of reliability) within minutes; so I usually just leave it to actual editors 'cause I'm not interested in doing nothing with my time repeatedly.

* To be clear, despite the opening nature of this thread, I don't actually have a problem with Wikipedia itself. At all. I use it and I think it's a great reference tool and a useful "skimming the topic" tool (similar in some ways to sparknotes or cliffsnotes). But, unlike a textbook, Wikipedia only introduces and lightly covers a topic. It has neither the time nor resources to, by itself, cover the depths of anything. It is not authoritative in and of itself and it can't be taken that way. Yet many do. This is pretty much the only problem I have with it, that it's taken as authoritative on any given topic when it doesn't claim that title for itself.

Had I not actually checked the linked "article" below, and taken Wikipedia at its (admittedly silly) word, I would have just presupposed that some strange article out there on the internet had claimed that the girl, protected by the officer, grew up to be a prostitute. The claim was so bizarre, I decided to look into it. Instead, it pointed me directly to Wikipedia itself, an article on prostitution. Ergo, it's a joke... but pretending to be legitimate. I've run into other things that are more subtle (thus less obvious) but are similar. It's simply a matter of not doing the double-checking necessary. Wikipedia itself encourages that behavior, but culturally we tend not to.

EDIT:
For those of you who want to know what I'm saying in fewer words and far more eloquently:

Wikipedia itself isn't a source. You use it as a source to find sources, and then you go out and find those sources and decide whether they're viable.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

For the record, K-Resh: yes, your math book is no longer a valid source (presupposing it's a print error, not written in by a user) insomuch as it continues to claim 2+2=5*. However the only reason you know that the book is wrong is because you have a slew other sources - starting from gradeschool - telling you otherwise. My problem* with Wikipedia is that even now I get people telling me they "read it on Wikipedia" and don't do any further research beyond that. They stop at Wikipedia. And that's terrible.


That's the thing though, if you go into my math book and look for anything else it's just as accurate as another source. The only problem with it is the edit I've made. Whether it be out of ignorance or purposefully. And like how you or I will look at 2+2=5, scoff and then cross it out. Any one of a myriad of editors will find an error on Wikipedia and fix it. So, yeah. The book and Wikipedia might be inaccurate in that instant for that specific topic, but that's true of any source ever. Books, websites, and newspapers are all written by somebody somewhere, and they are only ever as accurate as the person who made them. So why is Wikipedia specifically a worse source to get stuff from?

I'd argue Wikipedia is better than a lot of sources because it purposefully seeks to cite and reference everything on there. While a lot of books or newspapers just state what the author intended and expect you to take it at face value. If your friends are using Wikipedia as their only source is it really any worse or better than them using, say, Time as their only source? Or Fox News? Or any source on Earth as their one and only source?

[IHateMakingNames]

My problem* with Wikipedia is that even now I get people telling me they "read it on Wikipedia" and don't do any further research beyond that. They stop at Wikipedia. And that's terrible.
Replace "Wikipedia" with any other source and it's the same thing. The issue is that they are stopping at a single source. Though this only applies from an academic standpoint, which you are. The only reason you are focusing on Wikipedia is because it's so fucking good and accessible that people go to it all the time.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Guys, I have a terrible secret to tell you. 90% of wikipedia is me. I'm all the admins.

[tacticslion]

Replace "Wikipedia" with any other source and it's the same thing.

Sort of. The difference is...

The issue is that they are stopping at a single source.

... exactly this. This is actually a really, really big one, though.

Though this only applies from an academic standpoint, which you are. The only reason you are focusing on Wikipedia is because it's so fucking good and accessible that people go to it all the time.

No. This is distinctly incorrect. I am not focusing on wikipedia "because it's so good", I'm focusing on it only because I keep running into a cultural mindset that indicates that "because it's so good" they don't need to go anywhere else. That bothers me. This just highlights a reason why.

That's the thing though, if you go into my math book and look for anything else it's just as accurate as another source. The only problem with it is the edit I've made. Whether it be out of ignorance or purposefully. And like how you or I will look at 2+2=5, scoff and then cross it out. Any one of a myriad of editors will find an error on Wikipedia and fix it. So, yeah. The book and Wikipedia might be inaccurate in that instant for that specific topic, but that's true of any source ever. Books, websites, and newspapers are all written by somebody somewhere, and they are only ever as accurate as the person who made them. So why is Wikipedia specifically a worse source to get stuff from?

I'd argue Wikipedia is better than a lot of sources because it purposefully seeks to cite and reference everything on there. While a lot of books or newspapers just state what the author intended and expect you to take it at face value. If your friends are using Wikipedia as their only source is it really any worse or better than them using, say, Time as their only source? Or Fox News? Or any source on Earth as their one and only source?

See that's the thing. I'm not trying to talk trash about Wikipedia, in a personal way (though I admit it looks like it in my OP). Rather, I'm frustrated by the cultural conceit that it's totally viable on it's own and the tendency of people to simply stop there.

Also, I'd agree that they're need to cite things is great. However, my point is that most people ignore the cites and just go with what's on the page. And it's really easy to do. Time is one of many magazines. Fox is one of many news stations. Wikipedia... is unique. And it is great, for skimming the topic and looking at other sources. But it just doesn't serve as a source in and of itself.

To quote myself above:
However the only reason you know that the book is wrong is because you have a slew other sources - starting from gradeschool - telling you otherwise.
And...
* To be clear, despite the opening nature of this thread, I don't actually have a problem with Wikipedia itself. At all. I use it and I think it's a great reference tool and a useful "skimming the topic" tool (similar in some ways to sparknotes or cliffsnotes). But, unlike a textbook, Wikipedia only introduces and lightly covers a topic. It has neither the time nor resources to, by itself, cover the depths of anything. It is not authoritative in and of itself and it can't be taken that way. Yet many do. This is pretty much the only problem I have with it, that it's taken as authoritative on any given topic when it doesn't claim that title for itself.
Also...
I've run into other things that are more subtle (thus less obvious) but are similar. It's simply a matter of not doing the double-checking necessary. Wikipedia itself encourages that behavior, but culturally we tend not to.

(To clarify that sentence, Wikipedia publicly encourages double-checking, but there is a strong cultural trend not to do so.)

Only one, very simple, small example: a while back, I had a research paper to grade. In the paper, the student cited a source. I spent some time looking for the source. I couldn't find it. Because it didn't exist - except on the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia entry (which most of his stuff came from, as it turns out), had several pertinent bits of information for his project incorrect.

While only one tiny example (among many), it points to the tendency towards that "read it and take it at face value" trend.

I also find it funny that a one-off line mostly about "hey, this article needs to be edited" has many people thinking I dislike Wikipedia, instead of taking it as "hey, Wikipedia isn't a viable source for academia on its own because it can be hit with errors or jokes" which is actually what I was saying.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I think it just plays into a bitterness we all have from getting told not to use internet sources on papers for no real reason.

[Bells]

Depends on what you see as a "real reason" really...

you could argue that it's to make sure students don't forget to actually do research on multiple sources and confront books old and new together, exercise reading and critical thinking and actual producing of content instead of just copying it.

There is value on not using internet sources on the past 10 years... but as we move forward, that is going to be revised. it has to.

I've seem teachers passing assignments where they would allow internet research, but the final paper had to be fully hand written. A way to make sure the student actually read the content of his own paper...

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Depends on what you see as a "real reason" really...

you could argue that it's to make sure students don't forget to actually do research on multiple sources and confront books old and new together, exercise reading and critical thinking and actual producing of content instead of just copying it.

There is value on not using internet sources on the past 10 years... but as we move forward, that is going to be revised. it has to.

I've seem teachers passing assignments where they would allow internet research, but the final paper had to be fully hand written. A way to make sure the student actually read the content of his own paper...

I could understand dividing the sources you can use up, or placing a maximum ratio on the number of sources you can get from the internet versus how many others you use.

[Krylo]

Only one, very simple, small example: a while back, I had a research paper to grade. In the paper, the student cited a source. I spent some time looking for the source. I couldn't find it. Because it didn't exist - except on the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia entry (which most of his stuff came from, as it turns out), had several pertinent bits of information for his project incorrect.

This has nothing to do with the culture of wikipedia and everything to do with the fact that absolutely everyone hates doing research papers. Specifically the research part. As a result lots of people look for shortcuts to get out of doing actual research, and wikipedia is a great shortcut if you're inclined to take that route.

It's not people being all "Man wikipedia has ALL THE DATAS" it's people going "Man fuck spending all day at the library I'm just going to look up this shit on the wikis, write a paper, and fudge my bibliography because I'll probably get away with it* and I have better shit to do with my time."

*The assumption here being that the teacher ALSO has better shit to do with their time.

[Magus]

God, I wish I had better shit to do with my time than grade research papers. But I don't. I DON'T

Anyway, I think Wikipedia is a good place to start but yeah, it would be best to find alternative sources such as academic journals, unless the information being referenced is entirely generic (like simply the definition of a word or let's say the exact wording of the U.S. constitution), whereas things like interpretations or opinions should use references from academic journals. Most colleges provide access to all the databases like JSTOR and Ebscohost for their students to use, and most professors require that at least some of the citations come from journals, so...

[tacticslion]

This has nothing to do with the culture of wikipedia

No, not Wikipedia's culture. "Our" culture, in the broader sense of "our".

and everything to do with the fact that absolutely everyone hates doing research papers.
Word.

Specifically the research part. As a result lots of people look for shortcuts to get out of doing actual research, and wikipedia is a great shortcut if you're inclined to take that route.

And most people are.

It's not people being all "Man wikipedia has ALL THE DATAS"

Except all the people who use Wikipedia as "proof" that they're correct.

it's people going "Man fuck spending all day at the library I'm just going to look up this shit on the wikis, write a paper, and fudge my bibliography because I'll probably get away with it* and I have better shit to do with my time."

*The assumption here being that the teacher ALSO has better shit to do with their time.

This is pretty much accurate. And most people do have better things to do with their time. The problem is they need to grade the research papers fairly because otherwise they're not teaching, and they're not doing their jobs. It sucks. I know.

Everyone takes shortcuts sometimes. But the heavy prevalence with which people feel encouraged by Wikipedia to take those shortcuts is the problem. Wikipedia itself is not - it's the over-all culture that surrounds Wikipedia and holds it as an ultimate one-stop source. Flipping the TV station? Easy. Picking a different magazine or whatever? Easy. (Though newspapers aren't as easy to change, depending on your area.) Finding an alternative to Wikipedia? Not so easy and requires doing more work. Which people tend to skim and give the "pertinent bits" they find (and either citing Wikipedia or citing sources that they've not looked up and pretending to be much more well-read than they are).

This is my frustration. That's it. That's all. That cultural trend.

God, I wish I had better shit to do with my time than grade research papers. But I don't. I DON'T

Anyway, I think Wikipedia is a good place to start but yeah, it would be best to find alternative sources such as academic journals, unless the information being referenced is entirely generic (like simply the definition of a word or let's say the exact wording of the U.S. constitution), whereas things like interpretations or opinions should use references from academic journals. Most colleges provide access to all the databases like JSTOR and Ebscohost for their students to use, and most professors require that at least some of the citations come from journals, so...

I'm pretty much just quoting Magus for truth here.

[Kim]

School is bullshit.

Fuck school.

[MSperoni]

Are you saying School is not cool?

[The SSB Intern]

No, only that Liz is apparently 2 COOL 4 SCHOOL.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Isn't it also possible school is too cool for Liz?

[Bells]

well then, somebody should adjust the damn thermostat...

...i'm not reading this right, am i?

[Satan's Onion]

Put on a damn sweater, then. Turning up the thermostat costs money. :crossarms:

[Amake]

Tycho of Penny Arcade said it best I think, data on Wikipedia exists in a quantum state of future-truth where you can absolutely trust it to be correct at an undetermined point in the future, but not ever at any given moment. (I'm paraphrasing.)

As the years go by, more and more I realize the only thing we have to do to be really sure of something is see the future.