Comments on: Wikipedia, the very free encyclopedia http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2009/01/22/wikipedia-the-very-free-encyclopedia/ because I don't believe in life before coffee... Wed, 23 Nov 2011 03:01:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sumit Khanna http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2009/01/22/wikipedia-the-very-free-encyclopedia/comment-page-1/#comment-375925 Sumit Khanna Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:57:20 +0000 http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2009/01/22/wikipedia-the-very-free-encyclopedia/#comment-375925 I heard about that study on NPR comparing Wikipedia to Britannica and Wikipedia had it still had more errors, but did fairly well. I mean a wise person is more likely to see something that seems off and say "Wait, that doesn't seem right," and click on the source. Dumb people believe everything they heard and see anyway, so it would make no difference if it's wrong on Wikipedia or Fox News. I heard about that study on NPR comparing Wikipedia to Britannica and Wikipedia had it still had more errors, but did fairly well. I mean a wise person is more likely to see something that seems off and say “Wait, that doesn’t seem right,” and click on the source. Dumb people believe everything they heard and see anyway, so it would make no difference if it’s wrong on Wikipedia or Fox News.

]]> By: Bob Watkins http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2009/01/22/wikipedia-the-very-free-encyclopedia/comment-page-1/#comment-372187 Bob Watkins Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:11:45 +0000 http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2009/01/22/wikipedia-the-very-free-encyclopedia/#comment-372187 Okay, I'll admit that it probably said that about Janis. But I'll bet it didn't say that for long. Wikipedia includes checks and balances in its "anybody can edit" model. Such as the recent posts list, which many volunteers scan to spot vandalism; automated processes called "bots" which auto-reverse the more obvious cases of vandalism, such as blanked pages; and the page history, that anyone reading a Wikipedia article can use to see what changes have been made over time. No one doing serious academic research would rely on Wikipedia as their only source, but then, no one doing serious research sould rely on any one source. Studies have been done comparing Wikipedia's accuracy against other encyclopedias, including Britannica, and it compares favorably. Okay, I’ll admit that it probably said that about Janis.

But I’ll bet it didn’t say that for long.

Wikipedia includes checks and balances in its “anybody can edit” model. Such as the recent posts list, which many volunteers scan to spot vandalism; automated processes called “bots” which auto-reverse the more obvious cases of vandalism, such as blanked pages; and the page history, that anyone reading a Wikipedia article can use to see what changes have been made over time.

No one doing serious academic research would rely on Wikipedia as their only source, but then, no one doing serious research sould rely on any one source.

Studies have been done comparing Wikipedia’s accuracy against other encyclopedias, including Britannica, and it compares favorably.

]]> By: al http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2009/01/22/wikipedia-the-very-free-encyclopedia/comment-page-1/#comment-371839 al Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:01:43 +0000 http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2009/01/22/wikipedia-the-very-free-encyclopedia/#comment-371839 Ok, that may be true ... but you gotta admit that's damn funny. Ok, that may be true … but you gotta admit that’s damn funny.

]]>