Wikipedia does NOT equal proof

[Superfraggle]

Noticed this once again in the Scientology thread and, rather than derail that thread, thought I'd rant here.

People are quoting Wikipedia as if it is fact. It is not. It is a great resource for getting an idea about something or, better, getting an idea of where to look. Use it to support an opinion, for sure. But don't state it as fact, please. It's open to writeups by people with absolutely no idea what they're talking about. IMO, the writeups on Wikipedia are no more valid than the opinions people are stating here. It's definitely a good resource if used properly, but it is NOT fact.

For example, people arguing about definitions of atheism quoted wikipedia:

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A narrower definition includes only those who believe that deities do not exist, and excludes those who hold no position on the question (see agnostics and other non-theists). In other words, an "atheist" can be defined as either:

• A person who does not believe the proposition "At least one god exists"; or
• A person who believes the proposition "No god or gods exist".

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

Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, says:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism

Dictionary.com says:

a‧the‧ism  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

The Cambridge Online Dictionary says:

atheist
[Show phonetics]
noun [C]
someone who believes that God does not exist

atheistic
[Show phonetics]
adjective

atheism
[Show phonetics]
noun [U]
the belief that God does not exist

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...ist*1+0&dict=A



Now I'm not sure what the origins of www.dictionary.com are, but Cambridge and M-W are pretty solid and what all three of them have in common is that atheism requires a belief in the absence of God.

The wikipedia reference that was used allows for unsurety about the existence of God, which the respected websites do not. Something as simple as the definition of a word like this can heavily affect a discussion, as people end up arguing with flawed premises.

/rant

[jonesy]

good one. I was wondering this very thing, how is Wikpedia content validated?

[Resolute 14]

Umm, semantics.

Even stating "in the broadest sense", Wikipedia is arguing that athiesm = the lack of belief in a god's existence. How is that any different than what dictionaries define it as?

Frankly, the problem appears not to be that the wikipedia article is attaching an overly broad scope to athiesm, but rather that it is being redundant.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Umm, semantics.

Even stating "in the broadest sense", Wikipedia is arguing that athiesm = the lack of belief in a god's existence. How is that any different than what dictionaries define it as?

Frankly, the problem appears not to be that the wikipedia article is attaching an overly broad scope to athiesm, but rather that it is being redundant.

They are not the same thing. I'll be the example. I am not convinced either way about the existence of God or Gods. By wikipedia's definition, I am atheist. By the other three, I am not. If there is going to be a discussion about something like this, there should be at least a common definition of what you're actually talking about. Wikipedia confounds that in my example.

[Resolute 14]

Fair enough, though as was shown in that thread, there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what constitutes an athiest.

Though, both dictionary links mention "the disbelief in god as a definition of atheism. I would suggest that "disbelief" and "absence of belief" are intended to be synonomous.

Not that I am going to try to paint Wikipedia as perfect. It is a user created project, and, to borrow an argument from the other thread, is subject to man's flaws. I've been an editor there for a year, and have tried to ensure my articles are as truthful as possible, but even so, there are a lot of times where the communal nature of it can obscure what could be an otherwise simple point.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Though, both dictionary links mention "the disbelief in god as a definition of atheism. I would suggest that "disbelief" and "absence of belief" are intended to be synonomous.

Well that is easy to check out. Here's what those two sites say about "disbelief":

Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: "dis-b&-'lEf
Function: noun
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/disbelief

dis‧be‧lief  /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-bi-leef]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1.the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. 2.amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelief

The M-W leaves no room for that interpretation. I suppose you might argue that the term "inability to believe" from dictionary.com allows for unsurety, but I would argue that, in order to believe something's possible, you have to be capable of believing in it's truth, should something convince you. At this point, however, you would be justified in pointing out that that is semantics.

This still leaves us with the two accepted scholarly sources dismissing the possibility of belief, however.


In any case, all I'm asking is that we acknowledge the fallibility of wikipedia. Go ahead and use it. I do. It's great. Just don't state it as fact, without other proof.

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by jonesy

good one. I was wondering this very thing, how is Wikpedia content validated?

Good question ... by whoever thinks they know more than the person who wrote the last entry.

(See Stephen Colbert's monologue about "Wikiality." ... and for the record, Oregon is "California's Canada.")

[Shazam]

I'm stunned. Something on the interweb not true?!? So I'm not gonna get that money from Bill Gates for forwarding that email?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I'm stunned. Something on the interweb not true?!? So I'm not gonna get that money from Bill Gates for forwarding that email?

No silly. If you find something on the Internet, it's true. If you find something that contradicts it, it is also true.

[daveyboy]

Wikipedia is great for getting some general background ideas and maybe pointing you in the right direction to do some real research.

I know that in most of my classes if you cite wikipedia you get a very low mark or an F.

[Scrambler]

Ummm, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...kipedia_is_not

[daveyboy]

"1.9 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"

That one never really crossed my mind.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jonesy

good one. I was wondering this very thing, how is Wikpedia content validated?

I don't know this for sure, but as far as I know it's not peer-reviewed at all. I often have students trying to use it as a scholarly source. (they're generally in for a shock!)

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't know this for sure, but as far as I know it's not peer-reviewed at all. I often have students trying to use it as a scholarly source. (they're generally in for a shock!)

Who is responsible for the articles on Wikipedia?

You are! Actually, you can even edit this very FAQ! As there are more than 2.34 million (2,340,000) other Wikipedians, this is a collaborative effort. Thousands of people have contributed information to different parts of this project, and anyone can do so, including you. All you need is to know how to edit a page, and have some encyclopedic knowledge you want to share. The encyclopedia provides users with a certain amount of freedom. You can learn who is responsible for the most recent versions of any given page by clicking on the "Page history" link. Nevertheless, if you spot an error in the latest revision of an article, you are highly encouraged to be bold and correct it. This practice is one of the basic review mechanisms that maintains the reliability of the encyclopedia. As a result, Wikipedia has become one of the most extensive information libraries available on the Internet. If you are uncertain or find the wording confusing, quote the material on the associated talk page and leave a question for the next person. This helps eliminate errors, inaccuracies, or misleading wording more quickly and is highly appreciated by the community.
How do you know if the information is correct?

As anyone can edit any article, it is of course possible for biased, out of date, or incorrect information to be posted. However, because there are so many other people reading the articles and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, incorrect information is usually corrected quickly. Thus, the overall accuracy of the encyclopedia is improving all the time as it attracts more and more contributors. You are encouraged to help by correcting articles, validating content, and providing useful references. See Wikipedia:Replies to common objections for a longer discussion of this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

^^ yeah--to me, this, rather than any specific inconsistencies in individual entries/definitions, is the real problem with Wikipedia. It's a great place to begin doing research, but to assume that somehow "biased, out of date, or incorrect information" is just going to naturally correct itself is a bit optimistic.

[Scrambler]

I think Wikipedia is a great network of information. Who's to say that old paper written encyclopedia's collecting dust didn't have inaccurate info or better, information that wasn't up to date. I like how just about every article has several sub-articles and external pages with reference to the subject. I don't think criticism is a bad thing though. But just like anything else, if you don't like or trust what your reading, don't read it!

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

^^ yeah--to me, this, rather than any specific inconsistencies in individual entries/definitions, is the real problem with Wikipedia. It's a great place to begin doing research, but to assume that somehow "biased, out of date, or incorrect information" is just going to naturally correct itself is a bit optimistic.

Its the law of averages. With Wiki, you are free to make any changes to any article you wish. If you add some information which is wrong, the theory is that someone that knows the proper information will update the article.
Eventually, it should be all truthfull information.

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

Thought I would add a wiki reference

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Its the law of averages. With Wiki, you are free to make any changes to any article you wish. If you add some information which is wrong, the theory is that someone that knows the proper information will update the article.
Eventually, it should be all truthfull information.

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

Thought I would add a wiki reference

For this to work, you are assuming that the average person who is going to take the effort to correct false information, actually knows the proper information. This may not always be the case.
________
Ipad Cases

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

They are not the same thing. I'll be the example. I am not convinced either way about the existence of God or Gods. By wikipedia's definition, I am atheist. By the other three, I am not. If there is going to be a discussion about something like this, there should be at least a common definition of what you're actually talking about. Wikipedia confounds that in my example.

What are you talking about?

A narrower definition includes only those who believe that deities do not exist, and excludes those who hold no position on the question (see agnostics and other non-theists).

That part appears to relate directly to the dictionary definitions you list.
The statement "I am not convinced either way about the existence of God or Gods" would, in my opinion, put that person in the Agnostic category, which is also noted.

I posted the articles because I didn't agree with the description Devlis' Advocate was using. I looked at M-W but posted Wikipedia because it had more explanation and I wanted as inclusive of a definition as I could find.

Did you miss the part at the top of the article?

Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

That would imply to me that at least some consideration has been put into the content of the article.

I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference in a published article. Then again, this is an internet message board. If you're coming here expecting reference level material on ANY subject, you probably have larger problems than the source of a definition of Atheist.


Incidentally, Nature did a comparison between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica Online. link

One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource. But it is also controversial: if anyone can edit entries, how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Its the law of averages. With Wiki, you are free to make any changes to any article you wish. If you add some information which is wrong, the theory is that someone that knows the proper information will update the article.
Eventually, it should be all truthfull information.

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

Thought I would add a wiki reference

You are assuming that the majority is always going to be right - for example in the middle ages the majority of the people thought the world was flat. Had Wikipedia been around back then, it would have reflected this.

Truth is not dependant on popular opinion.