Comments on: Cliquey Wiki – Wikipedia inner circle outed?

By: Michael Roberts

Michael Roberts — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:23:25 +0000

I third that — Wikipedia is the best possible place to get past the initial “what the heck is X” moment and where to get more information if you need it.

By: eutopia

eutopia — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:41:13 +0000

I teach freshman composition at a state university, and it is AMAZING how many students believe that Wikipedia is a legitimate and reliable source for their research papers (I repeatedly tell them why it’s not, but, huh, they don’t seem to listen).

Even worse, some of them seem to think that I don’t know how to use the internet, and they plagiarize entire Wiki entries for their essays.

I personally love Wikipedia, though; but only as a jumping off point, as Adam said. It’s a good place to get a feel for a subject before delving into deeper sources.

By: Adam Rakunas

Adam Rakunas — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:20:39 +0000

If I want to know about comic book characters, I’ll head for Wikipedia first. Anything else, and I treat the place like a jumping off point for other sources of information.

But the problem with having a volunteer editing pool is that you’ll start attracting people with tons of free time and an uncle who owns an axe and grindstone factory.

By: Paul Raven

Paul Raven — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:32:18 +0000

Agreed, docduke – subjects like that tend to be pretty safe as far as factual details are concerned. I think the issues become more fraught when political subjects are involved, or biographies of specific persons.

By: docduke

docduke — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:59:43 +0000

I find it very reliable, even in highly technical areas (like plasma physics and numerical modeling, my specialties). Where there is doubt, the articles are often flagged by warnings that the “neutrality” of the article is questioned.

In other technical areas, for example the structure of organic chemicals with diagrams in the public domain, I find no peer on the internet.