Define Cynical Fan Forums

It has come to my attention that in another topic the accuracy of Wikipedia has once again became a topic. This is a rather important issue that should maybe be touched upon in a topic of its own. We all (or most of us) probably know what Wikipedia is, a free online encyclopedia. It is completely user created, anyone can create and edit any article. Obviously there are admins who act as editors to filter out the stupid articles and the obviously inaccurate one. You can find articles like these on parody sites such as Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). Many teachers tell their students not to use Wikipedia because its content is arguably inaccurate. This is also argued by many students themselves who instead when asked to search online they get their information elsewhere. Perhaps Brittanica Online? Or maybe Encarta? However, these need to be paid for monthly, and not all schools pay for this service. Books DO exist in school libraries and obviously in every library, however how many students are being taught methods of searching for relevant information in encyclopedias? For that matter how many schools have encyclopedias that aren't from the 70's? The problem is schools can't afford up to-date-material. So what choice is there? A whole hudgepodge of amateurly put together websites that apparently just because they aren't Wikipedia they are accurate legitimate information. What would happen if I put together a website about dolphins. I put inaccurate but believable info on dolphins and the various species. I even put REAL links on a separate link page. The teacher when looking over the shoulder of a student researching on my website notices the web address "www.dolphinworld.org" (not ".com" I do this because I had a teacher who actually told us not to use websites with ".com" in their name) and makes no effort to look at the info. Now how exactly is that better than Wikipedia? Because its NOT Wikipedia. Although you got to wonder if bad press against Wikipedia is actually sent out by Encyclopedia Brittanica... Also if you complain the info is incorrect why don't YOU correct it, its only as good as the people using it are. I know it may seem like I'm rambling... But perhaps this could be a topic for Wikipedia discussion, its faults and flaws, well written articles... Stuff like that.

Of course it's useful. If you're researching something relatively general (random example: abortion, jaguars, Walmart, etc.), you're likely to get very accurate info and plenty of citations for everything.

On the other hand, issues occur when you look for obscure things. The less well-known a subject is, the fewer people are looking at its webpage and actually contributing accurate, useful information. Case in point, my school had Darth Vader listed as a former student for weeks.

Case in point, my school had Darth Vader listed as a former student for weeks.

I don't see that as a major error... If common sense is up and running... Oh yeah... ITS %;%* IN THE MORNIN DONT'CHA KNOW?

tl;dr

tl;dr

tl;dr

tl;dr

Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedia article for Tl;dr. You may want to search Wiktionary for "tl;dr" instead for a dictionary entry.

NOW whos presenting false information? By the way its 7:34AM where I am now.... &;#$am in other words...

1. (Internet) too long; didn't read
2. (Internet) used to indicate a summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tl;dr

It actually meant something... o_O...

Wikipedia itself should not be used for citations in any important essay, journal or article. There was some embarrassment concerning an article on the Spice Girls (or someone) in a newspaper over here, where the author of the article used Wikipedia for research and as a result misattributed several songs. Ideally, all information should be cross-referenced to at least two non-Wikipedia sources.

Of course, if you just want to find out what the capital of Trinidad & Tobego is, or what Leonard Cohen's third album was, then Wikipedia is as good a place as any. It's a valuable repository of almost always accurate information.

I can only tell about the german wikipedia. Probably it's the same as the .com version. Some years ago, when I got some history lessons, one of my classmates made a presentation about "barock" only based on wikipedia. Our teacher (Ms Pflaum 1,95m) don't like wikipedia at all, so she asked him some questions about the paper. She ripped him apart and gave him only 3points out of 15. (would be a E in the US). So wiki is a good page to check some facts... but it's not a good idea, to base you work on it

or what Leonard Cohen's third album was

I don't need Wikipedia to know that.

(would be a E in the US)

US doesn't have an "E" letter grade in most schools

Anyway, what nickspoon said is basically how I feel.

Yes and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

e: Conservapedia is better though

Yes and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

Do you know what students do in classes that don't let them use wikipedia?

They still use wikipedia. They just don't cite it.

I do that, Dos.

Wikipedia is great because it's a very detailed summary of your subject. You actually can't write a paper just off Wikipedia, because it doesn't get as deep into details as you need most of the time. Teachers (or at least, all the ones I've ever had and my teachers babied us) usually make you get more detailed than Wikipedia is, or make you use more sources than a single website.

I sense a big post coming on.

Just wait...just wait...

(Not by me though)

It depends what you're using it for, as npickspoon said. If you're building a nuclear storage facility, don't get your info for how to ventilate the place from wikipedia.

For almost any purely academic endeavor or quest of curiosity, I'd say go right ahead and use Wikipedia. Teachers and anyone else complaining about it's accuracy are being way too over critical when misinformation runs rampant everywhere. Wikipedia is really no worse than a classroom. Seriously. Teachers so often insert their "expert opinion" into stuff and are fuzzy on the facts themselves, and when they let off something that's wrong, there's usually nobody there to contradict them. Wikipedia at least has its editors. Which brings up another point actually.

You have to use common sense when deciding whether to trust the wiki page you're looking at. Some well-travelled pages are visited by editors daily, but many other relatively obscure pages have a much higher chance of cointaning faulty information.

If you can look past the inherent fallacies, Wikipedia is a truly incredible resource for information surpassing the value of just about everything else in the way of efficiency of absorption of that information. The general style of its articles counter what most "good" sources tout with the bloating of their articles, with the intent of presenting itself in a logical and readily perceptible fasion. This is a very important part of education.