Are you a Wikipedian?

[DrWho42 13]

How many herein contribute to the Free Encyclopaedia known as "Wikipedia"?

Personally, I'm a frequent Wikipedian with at least over 3000 edits with a few articles written up (Namely, the S.C.I.F.I. World and Me and the Big Guy articles along with countless Doctor Who book articles)

 

For those interested in seeing my User page, here it be: User:DoctorWho42.

[BakulaBabe 2]

I read the articles occasionally, mostly when I come across a link, like the one in the previous post. Nice page! You're one of 3 people I know (myself and my husband are the other 2) who likes Eraserhead.

[LoveMalePecs1 0]

No but I've read articles on there like the Transformers History (Classic 80's cartoon and mention of the movie-Beast Wars/Beast Machines) and of course articles on Star Trek such as the Starships through the 5 series-10 films just as examples.

 

 

B) B)

[Theunicornhunter 2]

No, but you might be interested - Scifi.com has a new section called scipedia (same set up as wikepedia) and they could use some help getting going

[Stephen of Borg 2]

no, but I love reading all of their articles on different TV series. I go there and read about TV series A LOT. I love learning stuff about my favorite shows

[jadziaezri 0]

i go when links are posted. i like it

[Itchygomba69 0]

no, but I love reading all of their articles on different TV series. I go there and read about TV series A LOT. I love learning stuff about my favorite shows

 

I do the same

 

Just Like I do with playboy I am there only for the articles!

[DrWho42 13]

No, but you might be interested - Scifi.com has a new section called scipedia (same set up as wikepedia) and they could use some help getting going

Ahh, yes.. I've definately noticed their Wiki: Scifipedia and mentioned it upon the Sci Fi Channel (United States), but there's still a maximegaload of articles (and articles to be written..) on the Free Encyclopedia.

May definately need to give that a try though...

[master_q 0]

No, but I do read the articles a lot/occasionally.

 

I do love wiki, though. But I would not use it as a primary source

[Angela 1]

No, but I do read the articles alot/occasionally.

 

I have used the information in projects, usually when i have checked that they are factually accurate, and amazingly it is quite accurate, about as acurate as Britanica.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

If a link is to wikipedia, I usually won't click it. Especially if it's amidst a serious discussion.

[DrWho42 13]

I was recognised for my service to Wikipedia by FiveMinute.net's leader, Colin Zeke Hayman...

 

"And speaking of thanking people, today I'd also like to thank DoctorWho42, a Wikipedian who recently went to the trouble of linking to every single one of our ENT and DW fivers on the corresponding episode pages at Wikipedia. Our traffic has increased quite a bit as a result. I don't expect these links to last -- someone is sure to go after them sooner or later on notability grounds -- but I really appreciate the effort he's gone to. Many thanks."

[Kor37 9]

Obviously, somebody has a lot of time on their hands.....

 

Give yourself a self-high-five DrWho42! Congrats!

[DrWho42 13]

Many thanks there Kor! Mmmm, no one here actually has an account though, eh?

Mostly been trying to find people to help out my side against the Deletionists since they want to delete the article List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs, which is pretty pertinent information about the channel itself....

If anyone here does have an account and recognises the value thereof, vote here or otherwise tell others likeminded who do have an accounto to do so..

 

Alot of effort and time has went into the above, so I wouldn't let the Deletionists deliver it over into oblivion just like that..

[Theunicornhunter 2]

If a link is to wikipedia, I usually won't click it. Especially if it's amidst a serious discussion.

 

You might be interested to know there was an independent group that compared Wikipedia to Britannica and found they were comparable in their error rate. I know there was an incident where someone used Wikipedia to defame a coworker but they have changed their policies after that.

 

What I do applaud is the concept of Wikipedia - the idea that knowledge should be free and some very qualified people have put a great deal of time writing some very detailed articles for the site.

 

I've also read articles on subjects about which I am familiar and they were not only factual but written in an accessible manner. And it is the latter that I appreciate - so many people do not know how to organize information and write in an expository style. I hate searching for some website where information is buried beneath a series of vague links. And even when you find a website - how do you know that person is an expert? In fact how do you know that anything you read on the internet was written by somebody who knew what they were talking about?

 

Wiki appears about as valid as anything else - meaning nothing is fault free. Many school text books have errors. I also have faith that people can be self policing - if you see a mistake you'll point it out.

[master_q 0]

Yeah, they are pretty good. When I read the science and mathematics articles..........they are excellent. The only area that I would be a little careful on is any controversial topics.

 

Wiki has grown very fast too. When I do a Google search these days.....wiki almost always appears in the top 20.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Yeah, they are pretty good. When I read the science and mathematics articles..........they are excellent. The only area that I would be a little careful on is any controversial topics.

 

Yeah. Unfortunately, controversial topics are when most cite wiki.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Yeah, they are pretty good. When I read the science and mathematics articles..........they are excellent. The only area that I would be a little careful on is any controversial topics.

 

Yeah. Unfortunately, controversial topics are when most cite wiki.

 

How is that? Most "controversial" topics involve opinions which can't be sourced: such as when does life begin, or is person in a vegetative state alive or are there WMD's in Iraq. (as mentioned above I do quote wiki for their concise definitions)

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Yeah, they are pretty good. When I read the science and mathematics articles..........they are excellent. The only area that I would be a little careful on is any controversial topics.

 

Yeah. Unfortunately, controversial topics are when most cite wiki.

 

How is that? Most "controversial" topics involve opinions which can't be sourced: such as when does life begin, or is person in a vegetative state alive or are there WMD's in Iraq. (as mentioned above I do quote wiki for their concise definitions)

That's just it though. People DO cite articles, (heavily biased ones at that) from wiki to support their positions. Published articles on those debates, and trying to pass them off as credible sources.

[master_q 0]

Few months ago I remember reading an article about a not so well know public figure that is on national radio (who is controversial)......it was basically an attack piece that was ripped off a site that campaigns against this personality

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Exactly. Not to mention politicians (or their aides) going there and spiffing up their bios, and editing/correcting opposing party members' bios. If it's been changed to prevent that kind of crap, fine. I'd just as soon rather go to an official website, given the chance.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Exactly. Not to mention politicians (or their aides) going there and spiffing up their bios, and editing/correcting opposing party members' bios. If it's been changed to prevent that kind of crap, fine. I'd just as soon rather go to an official website, given the chance.

 

And you think going to a politician's "official" website is going to provide more accurate information?

 

Which is my point - it's not so much that wiki may contain inaccuracies but that you can't find anything that doesn't.

[mj 7]

No. I have heard of it, but am not familiar with it. I believe Ihhave been there once, through a link that was in a thread here.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Exactly. Not to mention politicians (or their aides) going there and spiffing up their bios, and editing/correcting opposing party members' bios. If it's been changed to prevent that kind of crap, fine. I'd just as soon rather go to an official website, given the chance.

 

And you think going to a politician's "official" website is going to provide more accurate information?

 

Which is my point - it's not so much that wiki may contain inaccuracies but that you can't find anything that doesn't.

 

A politician's official website isn't going to be littered with defamatory (and infantile) lies. Yeah there's bias, and maybe even lies intended to boost a politico's image, but no kind of exaggeration you wouldn't find on a resume. But my point was more about how easy it is to edit a wiki entry, thus making mudslinging a bit easier and making wiki a little less credible.

 

Again, if they've changed things to make this harder, fine, but I still don't trust wiki.

[DrWho42 13]

Wikipedia maintains the principle of Neutral point of view, and this policy encompasses all articles.

 

"NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is 'absolute and non-negotiable.'"

 

This includes Political bias...

 

Mmmm, anyone here uses Memory Alpha, by-the-way?

[APW 0]

I used to be.

And the articles are nowhere near as neutral as Wikipedia would have you believe. Especially the political and religious articles.

[DrWho42 13]

I used to be.

And the articles are nowhere near as neutral as Wikipedia would have you believe. Especially the political and religious articles.

Yeah, that's why their tagged for clean-up or something likewise but I never bother with stuff like that...

 

The most controversial article I've been through an edit war with was the Temporal Cold War.