Jump to content

Wikipedia


Erosarrow05
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have thought about this for a long time and after reading a few posts tonight finally decided to throw this out for consumption...

A great number of people like to jump on the Wiki-bandwagon, in that, wikipedia should not be trusted for information. I find wikipedia exceptionally useful, exceptionally reliable, and most importantly, exceptionally well organized and offers a simple to UI. In my personal opinion it has garnered an unfair reputation in providing false information as it can, and is edited by anyone.

So here is my challenge... Go through the Kings Island Wikipedia Page and see how many errors you can find, or at least things you think are errors. This challenge is twofold, 1. to get misinformation corrected, and 2. to see if there really is validity in stating information posted on Kings Island's Wikipedia page is laced with inaccuracies.

I took the liberty of saving a copy of the webpage before I posted this, just incase anyone decided to get cute and make some 'creative modifications'....

So there you have it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Island

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took the liberty of saving a copy of the webpage before I posted this, just incase anyone decided to get cute and make some 'creative modifications'....

You really hit the nail on the head with the statement.

It's not that all the information on Wiki is incorrect.

It is because the information can be changed at any time for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By virtually anybody, whether expert or dunce...or even a miscreant.

I once saw a lawyer attempt to cite Wikipedia in a court case...the judge threatened the poor guy with contempt if he even thought about doing it again...and then the judge went to her chambers and edited Wikipedia, brought out the edited version, which was now very damaging to the lawyer's case and said quietly, "See?"

She then went back to her chambers and restored Wikipedia to what it had said. I have often wondered if what she did was actionable and against legal ethics. After all, during that interim, SHE had caused it to say something different...and it could have been detrimentally relied on by others...worldwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^:lol: Wow! She could have just added a sentence that had no real impact, such as:

"On January 15, 2009, a judge in New Jersey entered a sentence into the content of this article, with the intent of removing it shortly thereafter."

It would have still proven her point (or is it 'proved?' I need to wiki that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I do not have enough knowledge of KI to partake in said exercise, I would like to applaud you, Erosarrow05, for starting this topic and for your stance on Wikipedia! I find it to be very useful as well. For many topics, going to the references cited at the bottom help to validate the information on the site. I look forward to reading this thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before, I like Wiki. If nothing else, you can check the sources of the majority of the information. If not, then just take it as if it were false, or search for confirmation yourself. A lot of my teachers recommend using Wiki to search for sources. So while Wiki itself may not be 100% reliable, it can't guide you to somewhere where you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part, I think the problem with Wikipedia in this setting (on a message board where one particular, specific place is the topic of most conversation) is that we encounter time and time and time again the same rumors being reborn based on Wikipedia articles. For example, I assume the instance that you're talking about is the Son of Beast SBNO [until 2011]. Another example is the Planet Snoopy names being announced multiple times via Wikipedia (and being incorrect each time). It's just bothersome to have a new topic started every few weeks about something that someone put on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is absolutely useful and fun! It's a great place to learn about movies, music, and a good place to start research for school projects (given, as you said, it's concise and well-organized format). However, that does not make it scholarly. It truly does amount to listening to your father (or, many, many thousands upon thousands of fathers and grandmothers and teenagers) recount their memories about, say, the history of Tupperware. Most of it may be correct, but opinions and inaccuracies will covertly sneak their way in. Unfortunately, the very notion that those inaccuracies might exist makes the entire site inappropriate for scholarly research.

What if someone wrote that Son of Beast was the world's largest steel roller coaster? Sure, most people would immediately sense that something was amiss. But what if it said Son of Beast was built using birch trees instead of pine? Most wouldn't notice... Maybe that incorrect fact would make its way to a research report or two... Perhaps it would be spread a bit among friends, who would discuss it briefly in line and others would overhear... It's not that Wikipedia is evil. Just that, ultimately, it doesn't end up being much more credible or reliable than oral tradition or history. It can be slightly skewed, so it alone cannot be fully trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before, I like Wiki. If nothing else, you can check the sources of the majority of the information. If not, then just take it as if it were false, or search for confirmation yourself. A lot of my teachers recommend using Wiki to search for sources. So while Wiki itself may not be 100% reliable, it can't guide you to somewhere where you can.

Exactly. It's useful as a starting point for your own research, but don't believe everything you read on it. I don't have a Wikipedia account, but I've done some vandal fighting anonymously when I was bored, so I've seen some of the stuff people will try to slip in. As a side note, referring to Wikipedia as "Wiki" is technically incorrect; a "wiki" is any freely editable website, of which there are thousands upon thousands. ~~~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...