Comments on: Wikipedia: Good Enough

By: In defence of Wikipedia « Inky Binary

In defence of Wikipedia « Inky Binary — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:24:43 +0000

[...] Wikipedia: Good Enough (outsidethebeltway.com) [...]

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:00:15 +0000

I do think 'good enough' is about right. I think, too, that it's even better if you click on the 'Discussion' tab to see the fighting over the inclusion or deletion of materials on the topic. To me, that is more useful than the cites at the bottom of the page as those are subject to editorial whim as well.

By: just me

just me — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:39:21 +0000

I think it is a useful starting point when looking for facts. I think it is better with regard to facts than opinion, and I think some topics may end up with a bias. One thing i do like are that there are often external links to other sources-often primary in the footnotes area.
.
I don't think it is a great cite for papers and such, but I think it is a starting point.

By: Russell Newquist

Russell Newquist — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:22:10 +0000

I find myself falling into the purely pragmatic argument here. It's good enough. For the tasks it's not good enough for, such as the aforementioned scholarly work, people don't use it. But for general, quick overview, "encyclopedia" content, it's good enough, and as long as it stays that way and stays so cheap to maintain, people will keep using it, and rightly so. It's called "efficient allocation of resources."

By: tom p

tom p — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:15:04 +0000

Wikipedia is convenient, incredibly up-to-date, and generally quite good.

and

Wow, That sounds like my first cousin on drugs. Never could quite figure out what a "short period" for him was.....

HA! Eneils, I was right with you until you said, "him"...

By: tom p

tom p — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:09:58 +0000

When I was a kid, we had a set of EBs. There was a certain feeling of power that came with the possession of those volumes: "Within these leaves are distilled the entire knowledge of mankind." It was a b*tch to grow up and find out that nothing could be further from the truth, still I miss the feel of those old brown tomes. For quick (and relatively accurate) fact checking, you can't beat Wiki. But, "buyer beware"... While recently doing some basic research for an article I am writing I looked up "fer de lance"(bothrops asper) (a central and south american pit viper) I read: "It has been suggested that the venomous bite of B. asper was a factor in the choice of certain Mayan settlements such as Nim Li Punit, where the thick jungle inhabited by these snakes was used as a defensive boundary."[9] I have a little bit of experience with this snake, and between that and what else is in the article, I found the inference of that statement (that the Mayans picked certain sites for their villages for the prevalence of FdLs) to be ludicrous on its face. I followed the cite and sure enough, the author made reference only to the fact that these snakes exist in the jungles where the Mayans built their villages. In other words, approach with a healthy skepticism, and follow the cites.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:05:38 +0000

If you need to look up some math or scientific equation, I would confirm that Wikipedia is just about perfect.

About controversial topics, of *course* you have to be aware that it may not be perfect. But you'll often find a ton of references at the bottom of the page which further help your search for truth.

By: Eneils Bailey

Eneils Bailey — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:55:53 +0000

Wikipedia is convenient, incredibly up-to-date, and generally quite good. Only on the most controversial and timely topics is it sometimes wildly inaccurate — and even then for short periods.

Wow, That sounds like my first cousin on drugs.

Never could quite figure out what a "short period" for him was.....