In my case, the equation I used was plugged into Mathcad as part of a larger experiment. I needed the native, general form which I then altered with the specific variables in question and the output was generated and compared to the rest of the experiment.

Not only did I turn the lab report (what people with science degrees call “papers”), but I got it back with a 98 on the top of it. I lost two points because I have continually lost two points all semester because I disagree with my professor on how to handle one specific right calculation and I do it the right way.

I hesitated to post again because I have entered a foreign world. Most of you folks seem rather well versed in the world of debate – and I am not. As an aside, to the guy that posted I avoided his points earlier I would submit that when I didn’t argue with your points it was most likely because I agreed with them. In many ways I recognize the problems with Wikipedia, but I view them as being largely an issue of political bias on topics dealing with personal politics / history / religion /etc.

“It’s a good thing your paper was not on Gaussian Elimination because Wikipedia’s example on that is just plain wrong – a fundamental of matrix calculation, which was laid down >150 years ago, should be correct you’d think but no.”

And here is the thing … did you fix it? Because you can.

I’m afraid that in many ways this comes down to a difference in basic viewpoints. Knowledge is only valid as long as it fits with the rest of everything else. I didn’t use Wikipedia as a single source on which I hinged everything – it was used as a tool from which I quickly acquired a single equation on a project that involved the heavy use of additional texts, research and practical experimentation. The data was valid because it fit.

You guys seem hellbent to dismiss Wikipedia and I doubt I’ll change your minds about that. In reality, however, I think this debate is about something much larger. He who controls the information controls the world. In the same way the MSM reacted against the blogs, the blogs are now reacting against Wikipedia. In each case, the motivation was the same. Self appointed protectors of “the truth” determine that some other method (different than their own) of passing information is inferior – mostly because it is a threat to their own power.

Of course, the greatest debate settling point is on the page for John Seigenthaler Sr. The controversy that started this discussion has been documented there now. Why? Because it happened and someone felt it was worth including. And it was.

Anonymous, unrefereed content seems like a bad idea.

Talk about damning with faint praise!

Andy Roark, I notice you didn’t actually answer the points made.

“The fact is that most people who use internet encyclopdias are savy enough to know that any entry marginally related to politics and/or history will be heavily tinged with personal viewpoints.”

And this is patently false if you have ever spent any time in a forum with plenty of leftists. Besides, by your argument, Wikipedia should simply exclude all such entries. Then they will get, by your lights, fairly close to 99% accuracy, with a good chance of nailing down that last 1% over time.

When they do, I might care what they have to say. Until such time, I treat them the same way as I would any news magazine. Any time they write on a subject where I have some knowledge, they are invariably simple-minded or outright incorrect. Therefore, when reading their output on a subject where I have relatively little knowledge, I must assume equal accuracy, until vouched by some authority that I trust more, or I find the time to study the issue myself. (There are plenty of technical issues with political implications. I don’t pretend to know all of them.)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a relatively trusted authority. If it cannot fill that role, it is nigh worthless.

Still, I have to say that Wikipedia is more accurate than most newspapers.

I really didn’t intend to argue, I was just trying to point to some of the stronger points of Wikipedia. Those strong points will remain, as will Wikipedia. Requiring contributors to register will do nothing but deter additions to the general knowledge base and will do nothing to stop politically charged half-fact from being added. Want proof? Go look at the registered user book reviews on Amazon under Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. People who registered spew their partisian garbage all over books neither of them have read – just for the sake of internet activism.

Most of the folks here seem to only be using Wikipedia in relation to their politican/current event/historical activities. Because of the lack of user identity, you guys want to toss the baby out with the bathwater or burn the witch because she turned you into a newt. The fact is that most people who use internet encyclopdias are savy enough to know that any entry marginally related to politics and/or history will be heavily tinged with personal viewpoints. But tell me again how that is any different than any other source available anywhere? So what if I know the name of the guy with a personal axe to grind? The burden of proof is on the reader in this day and time. Anyone expecting anything less is living in fantasy land.

Do me a favor. Go look at the entry for a “Sawtooth Wave” on Wikipedia. Find any other webpage on the internet with the basic facts presented in as clear, concise and basic manner. Now do the same for an “8051 Microcontroller”. I bet you a wooden nickel the “other” pages you find won’t be on the same server, with a quick cross search available.

Wikipedia wins.

(And while your analogy is very vivid I don’t get it. I understand unwholesome food and the propagation of bacteria. But if I’m not swallowing every inaccurate line (or as you suggest not using the product at all for political research) how do I end up being hurt by some crap among the good data?)

Transparancy would be a good addition to the project. So who are you, mate?

You’re kidding, right?

As another commentator pointed out, “If you stir a teaspoon of shit into a gallon of icecream, you end up with a gallon of shit.” If 10% – or even 1% – of the articles are grievously wrong, and you don’t know which ones – then the entire exercise is worthless.

Fortunately there is a useful rule of thumb for identifying which articles are wrong. Anything purely technical is likely to be accurate. Anything touching on politics, even indirectly, is likely to be hopelessly skewed by leftist revisionism. (And it is almost always leftist revisionism.)

One of the things bloggers have is transparency. Wikipedia doesn’t. At all.

You make a good point when you write “Wikipedia borrows too heavily from the wrong parent: its entries are edited to resemble encyclopedia entries.”

But when you write, “If 10% of the entries are grievously wrong, that’s clearly an unacceptable level of accuracy…” I have to ask, “Says who?”

Obviously you can play with the word “grievously” but in general who meets this 90/10 standard? (And please provide links to their measurement methods.)

I agree with the others who have suggested that we should trust no source implictly if we want to know the truth. Hidden agendas, self-serving fact twisting, ignorant pontification, and outright lying has been a part of the official and unofficial narrative since the first historians and journalists.

IMHO all the problems starts with the fact that intelligent people, people who do know better, keep quiet when any distortions (by others) work for them and their narrow interests.

We all need to up our willingness to promote the truth and call out those who screw with the truth, whoever and whatever party or agenda they serve.

That’s better IMHO that annointing our “betters” to filter all that we see and hear. That said I do agree that the look and feel should not make anything look overly authoritiative. I like the idea of real time comments and periodic clean-ups.

I think a deeper investigation of that comparison reveals the undermining flaw of Wikipedia. Bloggers have long (and correctly) defended blogging for being a self-correcting format. Rapid cross-checking and frequent challenges by other bloggers inflict a certain standard of accuracy even when the original entry was not vigorously validated. The blogger’s reputation, if not identity, is visible to all. And so are all the challenges, refutations and counter-points by others.

None of this is true of Wikipedia. Wikipedia borrows too heavily from the wrong parent: its entries are edited to resemble encyclopedia entries and not wiki discussions. The cogent defense of contrary positions is not part of the primary content.

Anecdotes of research successes are not a compelling defense of the product. If 10% of the entries are grievously wrong, that’s clearly an unacceptable level of accuracy, yet 90% of the users would still report a positive experience. Anecdotes of error are not similarly irrelevant.