Wikipedia does NOT equal proof

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Truth is not dependant on popular opinion.

Which is the biggest problem with Politics.

[icarus]

Wikipedia provides factual information available nowhere else, such as the following:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Tom Hanks' characters also have a recurring theme of bladder issues. In Forrest Gump, Forrest meets JFK and blurts out, "I gotta pee!" In Road To Perdition Michael Sullivan replies "it also makes me ****" when asked if coffee makes him sweat. In The Green Mile, Paul Edgecombe is afflicted with an extremely painful urinary tract infection, which John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) cures. In A League of Their Own, Jimmy Dugan makes his entrance into the locker room highly hung over, seemingly unaware of all the female ballplayers present, and takes a very long stretch at the urinal, as the women look on in disbelief. When he finally finishes, Rosie O'Donnell's character says, "That was some peein'!" Hanks' characters are also seen urinating in the movies The Money Pit, Big, Cast Away, and Apollo 13. In The Terminal, Hanks' character runs to the bathroom after waiting all day at a pay phone for a call about a job.

[Scrambler]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

What are you talking about?
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?
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

Great post Bobblehead, thank you!

[Ayrahb]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

What are you talking about?
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?
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

Right on target.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Not really. The technical definitions are as follows:

Agnosticism — is unknown or inherently unknowable. Some agnostics take a stronger view that the concept of a deity is incoherent, thus meaningless and irrelevant to life. is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities The term is used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion.

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".

This is the post in question, Bobblehead. You neglected to include the other part of the Wikipedia entry. So, in this case, Wikipedia was not the problem...you were. I merely assumed you would have copied the other part too when trying to give a "technical definition"

You're right. In this case, Wikipedia appears not to have been the problem. However, that was merely an example. It does NOT mean Wikipedia is to be trusted or used as fact. The website itself even states that.

It's also true that any article may possibly be wrong. That possibility is greatly reduced when the article is written by someone with credentials, who has been edited. Nobody's going to get fired or lose the respect of others in their profession for a false wikipedia entry. Wikipedia can be right. Scholarly references can be wrong. Generally speaking, though, it is FAR more likely for the reverse to be true. Wikipedia is not a valid source for fact.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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

Your second quote from there does more to discredit your opinion than support it, in my opinion.

"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."

An average of FOUR inaccuracies PER ENTRY. That's worse than I expected. All this article has served to do is shake my faith in the Encyclopedia Britannica which, you'll note, isn't a resource I have ever used.

It seems like the study focused on scientific entries, as well, ignoring much of the rest of the content more likely to be written by people with no idea.

[Bobblehead]

Where are you going to find any source that is 100% correct 100% of the time? If you have one, I'm sure it would settle most of the long running debates on this board.

As for non-scientific entries, you can probably look up any topic and find research material that contradict each other.

Going back to your specific rant, even after you pulled up the other definitions, Snakeeye still believed that you were arguing semantics. So while your "authoritative" sources may have been more specific, nothing in them said Wikipedia was wrong, and I pointed out that your example was covered.

You can read articles from Websters, Mirriam-Webster, Al-Jazzera, Fox News, New York Times, or the TV Guide and they will all have mistakes.

[octothorp]

Like any information resource, there are things it's good at, and things it struggles with. If you want to know the definition of a word, use a dictionary. Wikipedia tends to complicate simple things in their attempt to have everything thoroughly cross-referenced, and the agnostic/atheist entry falls into this category: atheism is increasingly becoming a catch-all for non-theist belief systems; the entry isn't exactly wrong, but it's misleading and inaccurate categorization. I blame it on the increasing polarization of our culture. If you aren't theist, you must be atheist; there can be no middle ground... if you aren't for us, you're against us. And thus, former middle-ground belief systems like agnosticism are polarized into the atheist perspective. My personal belief system has elements of agnosticism, ignosticism and apatheism, and it kinda ****es me off to be lumped in with the atheists... no disrespect to the atheists, who are all very sensible and practical people.

[Hack&Lube]

The argument that Wikipedia is actually a more trustworthty source of information stems from the fact that it is edited by millions of people versus a small handful of editors or authors for any academic source - but the problem with Wikipedia is that what you see on the screen is not really the "average" bias composite of all the input of those people that have contributed to an article - but rather a ragged conglomeration of what happens to be the current edit of the day...mixed in with what people "pick and choose" to add or delete liberally.

As for agnosticism and atheism - I think those are pretty simple terms that don't require the sort of crazy semantic discussions we are finding in this thread.

Iny layman's terms - An agnostic is not sure if there is a supernatural god or not and questions if it is even possible to know if there is one - or if it even matters...but the possibility is there even if it is irrelevant to life.

An atheist is stone-cold certain there is no god or supernatural force.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

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.

Well what makes an article in a regular paper encylopedia correct?
Sure you will get a few out of the thousands of people putting up wrong information, it's up to the rest of wikipedians to find and correct any false information they find.

I am not going to say there aren't going to flaws or misinformation, that is part of the beast (but that goes with anything else out there) all I am saying is that eventually, it will all be fairly close to the truth.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Where are you going to find any source that is 100% correct 100% of the time? If you have one, I'm sure it would settle most of the long running debates on this board.

As for non-scientific entries, you can probably look up any topic and find research material that contradict each other.

Going back to your specific rant, even after you pulled up the other definitions, Snakeeye still believed that you were arguing semantics. So while your "authoritative" sources may have been more specific, nothing in them said Wikipedia was wrong, and I pointed out that your example was covered.

You can read articles from Websters, Mirriam-Webster, Al-Jazzera, Fox News, New York Times, or the TV Guide and they will all have mistakes.

One more time...no source will be 100% correct 100% of the time. Four mistakes PER ARTICLE is not acceptable for a source quoted as fact. Eklund's blog has been right before. TSN has been wrong before. Does that make an Eklund rumour equally good evidence in an argument? no.

[Resolute 14]

Lacking context, "four mistakes per article" is a meaningless statement.

[ricosuave]

the internet!?! is that thing still around???

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

One more time...no source will be 100% correct 100% of the time. Four mistakes PER ARTICLE is not acceptable for a source quoted as fact. Eklund's blog has been right before. TSN has been wrong before. Does that make an Eklund rumour equally good evidence in an argument? no.

OK, what is your tolerance?
How do you know how many mistakes are in what you are reading?


I have no problem agreeing that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as reference for a research paper, at least not without corroboration. But I still think you are off base in your criticism of the Wikipedia article on Atheism, and you seem to be using that as a reason to discount all articles.

I don't believe Wikipedia is gospel. It has too many flaws, as you and others have pointed out. But I am not willing to believe that Wikipedia is an exercise in futility. The sum of knowledge in there is truly astounding, and I doubt it could be created in any other way than it was.

(note: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an online dictionary, so it should attempt to give more explanation than a simple definition).

BTW, this is apparently a timely discussion: Wikipedia co-counder plans rival

He said he became frustrated with Wikipedia's failure to build expertise into its editing process and left after its first year.

Sounds interesting. Answers many of the concerns raised. But I wonder if this can catch the same "lightning in a bottle" that Wikipedia did? If it doesn't, it will be another of the superior ideas that end up forgotten.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

OK, what is your tolerance?
How do you know how many mistakes are in what you are reading?


I have no problem agreeing that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as reference for a research paper, at least not without corroboration. But I still think you are off base in your criticism of the Wikipedia article on Atheism, and you seem to be using that as a reason to discount all articles.

I don't believe Wikipedia is gospel. It has too many flaws, as you and others have pointed out. But I am not willing to believe that Wikipedia is an exercise in futility. The sum of knowledge in there is truly astounding, and I doubt it could be created in any other way than it was.

(note: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an online dictionary, so it should attempt to give more explanation than a simple definition).

BTW, this is apparently a timely discussion: Wikipedia co-counder plans rival

Sounds interesting. Answers many of the concerns raised. But I wonder if this can catch the same "lightning in a bottle" that Wikipedia did? If it doesn't, it will be another of the superior ideas that end up forgotten.

Ok now we're starting to argue the same point. I'll give you the atheism point, if you like. It was only meant as an example, don't accept that one if you don't want to. From the rest of your post, I see you are getting it now.

I don't believe Wikipedia is an exercise in futility either, as I have stated multiple times. I use it, and think others should too. My problem is when it is quoted as fact, without other supporting evidence. Quote it...use it...but, in doing so, acknowledge its limitations

Sounds to me like we now agree...minus the atheism example, which wasn't meant to be the main focus of this thread anyways.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Lacking context, "four mistakes per article" is a meaningless statement.

The context comes from the article Bobblehead quoted earlier. Here it is if you missed it: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html

[Bleeding Red]

From Canada.com:

"Wikipedia founder plans new encyclopedia

Is the plan ingenius, or wishful thinking that things will be different?"

"By engaging expert editors, eliminating anonymous contribution, and launching a more mature community under a new charter, a much broader and more influential group of people and institutions will be able to improve upon Wikipedia's extremely useful, but often uneven work."



http://www.canada.com/topics/technol...43e37c&k=69406