Couple of web thangs

Phytotron · Post by **Phytotron** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:38 am

New search engine: PreFound.com
Article: Social Searching

Another reason for me to distrust Wikipedia: Wikipedia entry had fake data on Yarmuth

Post by **Lucifer** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:48 am

Um, they did a neato study that determined that on scientific topics, wikipedia was equally accurate to other, more closed encyclopedias.

Raoul Duke · Post by **Raoul Duke** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:40 am

Lucifer wrote:Um, they did a neato study that determined that on scientific topics, wikipedia was equally accurate to other, more closed encyclopedias.

yeah, i read that in the paper, something like encyclopedia britannica averages 4 errors per article while wikipedia averages 5. and wikipedia has the advantage in that its constantly being re-edited and that it has much much more current stuff. I couldnt look Mysql up in the encyclopedia and learn what it is. wikipedia on the other hand has a big article about it.

i was pleased with the paper for that article.

edit: Just remember that I also read in the paper about connecting IPs from senators' offices to changes in wikipedia. apparently joseph biden's secretary edited out the part where he was charged with plagiarism twice.
hehe. silly biden.

philippeqc · Post by **philippeqc** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:07 am

and while wikipedia averaged 5 errors per articles, each articles averaged three time the size of an encyclopedia's.

-ph

KamP · Post by **KamP** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:14 pm

Well wikipedia is, in spite of errors or discrepancies, whatever, a great idea. But I would never use that as a real source in anything that requires any accuracy. Never trust an entity that's not completely accountable for its actions. In the meantime, for cursory information, or even in some cases, in depth information, Wikipedia is fine.

Phytotron · Post by **Phytotron** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:17 am

I don't disagree. I would simply suggest that one should approach anything in Wikipedia with a healthy skepticism, especially if the information doesn't provide a credible reference(s) (many do, from what I've seen, and that's good). But if I were a teacher or professor, or an editor or reporter, I wouldn't accept it as a legitimate or credible source.

I'm wondering what the Wikipedia fans think of that search engine, though. It seems conceptually much in the same vein as Wikipedia.

Walking Tree · Post by **Walking Tree** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:30 pm

I've had a wikipedia fangirl teacher...

Post by **Lucifer** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:19 pm

Was she hot?

KamP · Post by **KamP** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:16 am

Lucifer wrote:Was she hot?

That's the REAL question isn't it. You know, behind everything.
Greeks go to troy to get back helen: was she hot?
Cleopatra rules over Egypt: was she hot?
Cheney shoots the only other guy on a trip with two girls and two guys: were they hot?

Post by **Lucifer** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:22 am

KamP, are you hot?

KamP · Post by **KamP** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:25 am

difference being that i'm a guy (was she hot?)
therefore, i am handsome to you!
hehe
[/u]