Couple of web thangs
- Phytotron
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5041
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
Couple of web thangs
New search engine: PreFound.com
Article: Social Searching
Another reason for me to distrust Wikipedia: Wikipedia entry had fake data on Yarmuth
Article: Social Searching
Another reason for me to distrust Wikipedia: Wikipedia entry had fake data on Yarmuth
-
- Core Dumper
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:22 pm
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.Lucifer wrote:Um, they did a neato study that determined that on scientific topics, wikipedia was equally accurate to other, more closed encyclopedias.
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
- Long Poster - Project Developer - Sage
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:55 am
- Location: Stockholm
- Contact:
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
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5041
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
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.
I'm wondering what the Wikipedia fans think of that search engine, though. It seems conceptually much in the same vein as Wikipedia.
-
- Match Winner
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:14 am