   Wikipedia what's the big hub-bub?
  So we all know what a wiki is. For those who don't: definition of wiki and wikipedia.this guy posts a false story about someone. anyone who uses a wiki knows that false information can be added at anytime. yet i don't know why people, especially the media, are making a big deal about it. for instance,Quote:On Dec. 7, New York Times Business Editor Larry Ingrassia sent a memo urging his staff not to use the site to check information.isn't that common sense? why would you cite a source from what is essentially an internet blog?maybe i'm not seeing why this is big news. so if someone would like to sit me down and explain it to me, it would be appreciated.here's the story
  Few people are technically competent, and such non-techs could easily mistake wikipedia for a reliable and authoritative source of information by failing to read the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" line on every single page in the same way they fail to be technically competent by intentionally avoiding any instructional or otherwise educational reading material.   ;  That's the thing, though. There are checks and safeguards to increase Wikipedia's authenticity. Isn't that the point? It is not unreasonable at all to put a good amount of trust in Wikipedia, if nothing else because Wikipedia does everything it can to increase its authenticity.If it didn't, it would read no differently than the urban dictionary or other similar wiki trash.   ;  Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia. But people are used to encyclopedias being reliable. Wikipedia is pretty much the first "encyclopedia" in recent memory to be so unreliable. Thus, it's pretty easy to see why people mistakenly assume that it's a reliable source of information.   ;Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDesanyone who uses a wiki knows that false information can be added at anytime. yet i don't know why people, especially the media, are making a big deal about it.If that sentence had said "edits" instead of "uses" your point would be true, but in that case the point would be unnescesary on the current topic because this is adressing people who uses the wiki, not people who edit it.Besides that, what are you trying to argue? That people aren't stupid enough to use wikipedia as a reliable source? Remember, the reason the media is making a big deal about it is because people have been using it as a reliable source for information.What I don't get is why this only comes out to the mainstream media these days, as said in the other thread, it's like 6 months old.;Quote:Original post by CowardQuote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDesanyone who uses a wiki knows that false information can be added at anytime. yet i don't know why people, especially the media, are making a big deal about it.If that sentence had said "edits" instead of "uses" your point would be true, but in that case the point would be unnescesary on the current topic because this is adressing people who uses the wiki, not people who edit it.Besides that, what are you trying to argue? That people aren't stupid enough to use wikipedia as a reliable source? Remember, the reason the media is making a big deal about it is because people have been using it as a reliable source for information.Quote:Original post by ExtrariusFew people are technically competent, and such non-techs could easily mistake wikipedia for a reliable and authoritative source of information by failing to read the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" line on every single page in the same way they fail to be technically competent by intentionally avoiding any instructional or otherwise educational reading material.with that being said, i can see how your normal web user can mistake it for a reliable source of info. but what's the media's excuse? aren't they supposed to double and triple check info? these professional who are supposedly bringing unbiased news and info use, partially, as it's basis of info a website that people can edit and alter at will. kinda silly ain't it?maybe a reporter should grow some balls and write a story about the unfortunate incompetence of fact-finding and checking by journalists.   ;Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDeswith that being said, i can see how your normal web user can mistake it for a reliable source of info. but what's the media's excuse? aren't they supposed to double and triple check info? these professional who are supposedly bringing unbiased news and info use, partially, as it's basis of info a website that people can edit and alter at will. kinda silly ain't it?Being a member of the media and being a "normal web user" does not exclude eachother. You can be both.If a reporter has a source he considers reliable, he doesn't double or tripple check information from it.   ;Culprit in Smearing Seigenthaler on WikiPedia Caught;Quote:Original post by CowardQuote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDeswith that being said, i can see how your normal web user can mistake it for a reliable source of info. but what's the media's excuse? aren't they supposed to double and triple check info? these professional who are supposedly bringing unbiased news and info use, partially, as it's basis of info a website that people can edit and alter at will. kinda silly ain't it?Being a member of the media and being a "normal web user" does not exclude eachother. You can be both.If a reporter has a source he considers reliable, he doesn't double or tripple check information from it.dan rather...bush anyone?;Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDesQuote:Original post by CowardQuote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDeswith that being said, i can see how your normal web user can mistake it for a reliable source of info. but what's the media's excuse? aren't they supposed to double and triple check info? these professional who are supposedly bringing unbiased news and info use, partially, as it's basis of info a website that people can edit and alter at will. kinda silly ain't it?Being a member of the media and being a "normal web user" does not exclude eachother. You can be both.If a reporter has a source he considers reliable, he doesn't double or tripple check information from it.dan rather...bush anyone?Yes, a supposed reliable source can be unreliable. You seem to put too much faith in humans beings.We're all a subject to human stupidity, we sometimes get lazy or in some cases don't even care, it doesn't matter whether you're a programmer, a journalist or president.The consequences might be different to each people and therefore some people will be more aware not to make mistakes or not, but they will happen whether you like it or not.