User:LarryTheShark: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information ? Yes and No.=== |
====Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information ? Yes and No.==== |
||
==== ★ Yes: ==== |
==== ★ Yes: ==== |
||
* Wikipedia is a resourceful and reliable tool to use when wanting information on non-controversial subjects: |
* Wikipedia is a resourceful and reliable tool to use when wanting information on non-controversial subjects: |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
====★ No:==== |
====★ No:==== |
||
([[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]) |
|||
* Wikipedia is not a resourceful and reliable tool to use when wanting information on controversial subjects: |
* Wikipedia is not a resourceful and reliable tool to use when wanting information on controversial subjects: |
||
::"The fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the [[WP:Undue|majority “weight”]] of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.<ref>Messer-Kruse, Timothy (February 12, 2012) [http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia] [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] Retrieved March 27, 2014</ref><ref>Colón-Aguirre, Monica &Fleming-May, Rachel A. (October 11, 2002) [http://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf “You Just Type in What You Are Looking For”: Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia ] (page 392) [[The Journal of Academic Librarianship]] Retrieved March 27, 2014</ref><ref>Bowling Green News (February 27, 2012) [http://www2.bgsu.edu/offices/mc/news/2012/news108238.html Wikipedia experience sparks national debate] [[Bowling Green State University]] Retrieved March 27, 2014</ref>" ([[Criticism of Wikipedia]]) |
::"The fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the [[WP:Undue|majority “weight”]] of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.<ref>Messer-Kruse, Timothy (February 12, 2012) [http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia] [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] Retrieved March 27, 2014</ref><ref>Colón-Aguirre, Monica &Fleming-May, Rachel A. (October 11, 2002) [http://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/colon%20wikipedia.pdf “You Just Type in What You Are Looking For”: Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia ] (page 392) [[The Journal of Academic Librarianship]] Retrieved March 27, 2014</ref><ref>Bowling Green News (February 27, 2012) [http://www2.bgsu.edu/offices/mc/news/2012/news108238.html Wikipedia experience sparks national debate] [[Bowling Green State University]] Retrieved March 27, 2014</ref>" ([[Criticism of Wikipedia]]) |
||
([[Wikipedia:Consensus]]) |
|||
* "Thanks for your efforts, but really, you are wasting your time trying to fight the cabal, or 'Guerrilla Skeptics' as they like to call themselves. You might be interested to watch their [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FuJT9mp0jw instructional video] on 'how to impose your own PoV on to a wikipedia page' (that's not its official title, but that's what it's all about..)" [[Brian Josephson]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brian_Josephson#Dean_Radin Source]) |
* "Thanks for your efforts, but really, you are wasting your time trying to fight the cabal, or 'Guerrilla Skeptics' as they like to call themselves. You might be interested to watch their [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FuJT9mp0jw instructional video] on 'how to impose your own PoV on to a wikipedia page' (that's not its official title, but that's what it's all about..)" [[Brian Josephson]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brian_Josephson#Dean_Radin Source]) |
||
Revision as of 08:42, 4 April 2014
Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information ? Yes and No.
★ Yes:
- Wikipedia is a resourceful and reliable tool to use when wanting information on non-controversial subjects:
- "A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the 42 science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica.[1]" (Wikipedia)
★ No:
(Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)
- Wikipedia is not a resourceful and reliable tool to use when wanting information on controversial subjects:
- "The fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the majority “weight” of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[2][3][4]" (Criticism of Wikipedia)
- "Thanks for your efforts, but really, you are wasting your time trying to fight the cabal, or 'Guerrilla Skeptics' as they like to call themselves. You might be interested to watch their instructional video on 'how to impose your own PoV on to a wikipedia page' (that's not its official title, but that's what it's all about..)" Brian Josephson (Source)
- "As the Guerrilla Skeptics have demonstrated, Wikipedia can easily be subverted by determined groups of activists, despite its well-intentioned policies and mediation procedures." Rupert Sheldrake (Source)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
GilesJ2005Internetwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Messer-Kruse, Timothy (February 12, 2012) The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved March 27, 2014
- ^ Colón-Aguirre, Monica &Fleming-May, Rachel A. (October 11, 2002) “You Just Type in What You Are Looking For”: Undergraduates' Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia (page 392) The Journal of Academic Librarianship Retrieved March 27, 2014
- ^ Bowling Green News (February 27, 2012) Wikipedia experience sparks national debate Bowling Green State University Retrieved March 27, 2014