HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
Wikipedia
tsumake - Mar 8, 2005
  tsumake Mar 8, 2005
Everybody seems to love Wikipedia these days. But doesn't anyone have a problem with an encyclopedia with articles written by anyone? How factually accurate are these entries? Is there a screening system for this sort of thing? Someone could put in completely bogus info on a subject and no one would be the wiser. I'm just curious.

 dsheinem Mar 8, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by tsumake@Tue, 2005-03-08 @ 02:37 PM



Everybody seems to love Wikipedia these days. But doesn't anyone have a problem with an encyclopedia with articles written by anyone? How factually accurate are these entries? Is there a screening system for this sort of thing? Someone could put in completely bogus info on a subject and no one would be the wiser. I'm just curious.




[post=131069]Quoted post[/post]


welcome to the in-ter-net.

 it290 Mar 8, 2005
Since it's a communal effort, entries can be re-checked by anyone as well. Consider it analagous to open-source software. Of course, that doesn't ensure accuracy, but neither do traditional encyclopedias. In fact, some complaints have been voiced about inaccuracies in the latest edition of Brittanica.

Here's a good article about Wikipedia:

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_i...d_enc...

 ExCyber Mar 8, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			But doesn't anyone have a problem with an encyclopedia with articles written by anyone?


Sure, lots of people do. It's one of the primary criticisms leveled against open wiki sites. As such, it is covered extensively in a Wikipedia article..., which I suggest you read since the rest of this post will likely read like a condensed version.


  
	
	

		
		

			How factually accurate are these entries?


Generally, it's expected that the more non-confrontational interest there is in an article, the more accurate it is. Obscure articles and those that are the subject of debate often contain incomplete, biased, or completely bogus information due to lack of interest, edit wars, trolls, and other issues.


  
	
	

		
		

			Is there a screening system for this sort of thing?


Not as such, no. It's part of the Wiki mentality. As I understand it, some articles are protected if there is a problem with that specific article, and users can be banned if they repeatedly make edits judged to be harmful, but in general anyone can edit any article.


  
	
	

		
		

			Someone could put in completely bogus info on a subject and no one would be the wiser.


No one, that is, except those who know the truth. The same is true of any information source, be it a website, a "real encyclopedia", a television show, a newspaper, a government official, etc. Although the wiki model has the disadvantage that anyone can introduce faulty information, it also allows anyone who knows the truth to introduce correct information. Ideally Wikipedia and similar sites could incorporate something like a "web of trust" mechanism and allow proofreaders to screen revisions, but their servers are loaded enough as it is. Really, though, this concern should continually be present regarding all media, not just the newfangled Internet stuff. You could say that a prestigous publication like the Encyclopedia Britannica is trustworthy, but do you really know that any more than you do with Wikipedia? Even if the editors and contributors are honest and generally competent, they could themselves rely on bogus sources or otherwise make mistakes...

 Mask of Destiny Mar 9, 2005
My personal experience with Wikpedia has been mixed. Some articles are superb, exceeding what you would expect from a standard encyclopedia, and some are complete dreck.

For information that's not too obscure and isn't hotly debated it's very reliable because the chance of someone who actually knows what they're talking about posting or editing the article is pretty high. The problem is that until an "expert" comes along pages often seem to be culled from what you might call common Internet knowledge. There are a lot of pages on the internet with their information copied from other pages and eventually you end up with a bunch of pages that say the same thing (thus appearing to confirm each other), but all that's happened is the same misinformation has been spread around. You'll see this on the Sega CD/Mega CD page. They have the same incorrect specs that you see just about everywhere, word for word and there are at least a few pages that are much worse than that, but there are a lot of gems too.

 mal Mar 9, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Mask of Destiny@Wed, 2005-03-09 @ 04:21 PM



There are a lot of pages on the internet with their information copied from other pages and eventually you end up with a bunch of pages that say the same thing (thus appearing to confirm each other), but all that's happened is the same misinformation has been spread around. You'll see this on the Sega CD/Mega CD page. They have the same incorrect specs that you see just about everywhere, word for word and there are at least a few pages that are much worse than that, but there are a lot of gems too.




[post=131098]Quoted post[/post]


If you know it's wrong, why don't you fix it?

 Mask of Destiny Mar 9, 2005
I've been planning on doing so, but I haven't gotten the gumption yet. It would be a good chunk of work, especially since there are some parts that I suspect are incorrect, but would need to do more research to confirm it.

I suppose I should at least go and fix the obviously wrong stuff (500MB CD-ROMS?), but what can I say, I'm lazy.

 Dud Mar 9, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Mask of Destiny@Wed, 2005-03-09 @ 10:37 AM



I suppose I should at least go and fix the obviously wrong stuff (500MB CD-ROMS?), but what can I say, I'm lazy.




[post=131122]Quoted post[/post]


Wasn't there a time when standard size CDs only held 500MB? I believe, the smallest we have now are 650MB CD-Rs (if they still make those), I could've sworn like six or seven years before those came out CDs only held like 500-575MB. Anyone older remember?

 CrazyGoon Mar 10, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Mask of Destiny@Wed, 2005-03-09 @ 11:37 AM



I suppose I should at least go and fix the obviously wrong stuff (500MB CD-ROMS?), but what can I say, I'm lazy.




[post=131122]Quoted post[/post]


When I read that, I just dismissed it as refering to the maximum amount of data that was ever written to a Sega CD game - not the capacity of the disc...

 Mask of Destiny Mar 10, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Dud+Wed, 2005-03-09 @ 10:55 PM-->
QUOTE(Dud @ Wed, 2005-03-09 @ 10:55 PM)
Wasn't there a time when standard size CDs only held 500MB? I believe, the smallest we have now are 650MB CD-Rs (if they still make those), I could've sworn like six or seven years before those came out CDs only held like 500-575MB. Anyone older remember?



[/b]



The CD audio standard started out at 74 minutes (the idea being that it could hold most symphonies) from the very start. I don't recall there ever being <650MB discs (apart from the miniature ones) and I don't see any reason there would be.