Egregious violations - Monday, April 10th, 2006

[DesertFoxCat]

Oh you did not just refer to Wiki as a good source of information, did you? It has good bredth, it has some good articles, but it also has 30% more errors than the Encyclopedia Britanica. Also, wikipedia will inevitably go with common knowledge, which isn't always correct.

I see someone has been reading the register a bit too seriously. That article completely ignores the kind of errors counted and its treatment of error rates is completely false (I never knew "badger" was correct when discussing Isaac Newton).

Not only that, but a hard-copy of Britanica runs at about $570 (469 euros) and the electronic version is a piece of garbage.

Also, Britanica goes out of date as soon as you get it, which is just as bad as having errors.

[Gizensha]

Well, not really. You can only spot factual errors in Wikipedia if you already know the information in the first place, which means thet you're less likely to look it up in the first place (unless the error is incredibly obvious).

The real challenge is identifying that vandalism has occured.

It's not always vandellism that's the problem. As I previously stated - wikipedia will always gravitate towards common knowledge rather than actual accuracy.

[Muninn]

In Wikipedia's defence, most articles have links to other sites where you can continue the research if you're interested enough and feel Wikipedia may be unreliable or not in depth enough.

[Richard K Niner]

Also, Britanica goes out of date as soon as you get it, which is just as bad as having errors.

Not really. Being out of date only matters if you have entries based on current events, or if something happens that falsifies accepted academic knowledge (for which you have a relevant entry).

[The MAZZTer]

If I want to know more about something or double check some facts, Wikipedia is a godsend.

Furthermore, yeah, Wikipedia is naturally going to be more on-top of things than any encyclopedia because 1) it's updated as soon as changes are made, unlike books :p and 2) many people are updating it, and correcting erroneous information/vandalism, etc.

The only thing that beats out Wikipedia is Uncyclopedia.

[Tum0spoo]

All so serious about your information sources. Jeez.

[The MAZZTer]

Obviously you didn't check my last link there, then.

[Emeraldshine]

The Uncyclopedia appears to be pure evil, and is against everything we encyclopediae stand for!

Wiki is generally accurate, as there are many encyclopedia nuts that run the site, and quite often you have to cite references for almost everything you stick in there, if it's a popular article. Also, most edits are quite obvious, as the kind of people who go around messing up encyclopedias are either

1. Pretty stupid
2. Trying to make someone laugh

[The MAZZTer]

Originally posted by Emeraldshine:
The Uncyclopedia appears to be pure evil, and is against everything we encyclopediae stand for!

Lies!

YOU KNOW YOU'RE LAUGHING AT IT RIGHT NOW.

[Zaaphod]

The Uncyclopedia appears to be pure evil, and is against everything we encyclopediae stand for!

Of course, that's the point. EEEEEEEEEEvil!!!

[DesertFoxCat]

Originally posted by Emeraldshine:
The Uncyclopedia appears to be pure evil, and is against everything we encyclopediae stand for!

Lies!

YOU KNOW YOU'RE LAUGHING AT IT RIGHT NOW.

I have to say BWAHAHAHAHA! Especially when there's one upside-down "A"