Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pathos]

I both love and hate Wikipedia.

I love it because it's a massive online resource, allowing pretty much everyone in the world to have access to a great deal of information. It's also a crowning achievement of humanity, towards the concept that people can work together in an attempt to make something great.

I hate it because... Dear god, the guidelines, editors and rules can just be ridiculous. Original research isn't allowed (even if it's factual and fills in a gap in the article itself) because of a restrictive (and stupid, in my opinion) rule of notability. (If there're no articles about it, it's not notable, so it can't be brought to attention for someone to make an article on it etc. There are also some things that no major site is made for or interested in touching.)

And then there's the editors, who'll defend their page with a zealous righteousness, even reverting your changes so they can put their own in or finding a way to edit / delete / crush criticism of a person / book - usually by abusing the rules mentioned earlier. They're just ridiculous.

How do you all feel towards Wikipedia?

( I really don't think I stressed enough why I love it, though. )

[Dwarf]

Much the same reasons.

[ChairmanPoo]

I like the wikipedia concept broadly speaking.

Obviously, however, as well as perks, it has flaws (edit wars, low reliability edits, susceptible to vandalism, e-penis contests between editors and admins...)


and I hate Steve Jobbs' douchebaggery. This, in younger years, made me state that I hated wikipedia, but this is not so. Wikipedia is ok, if flawed in some respects, it can still provide valuable info in a pinch. I think that serious textbooks are better, but it does act as a cheap fast source of info of varying reliability.

[Cthulhu]

I don't research on Wikipedia.  Instead, I go to Wikipedia, find facts I want to cite for a paper, and scroll down and find where Wikipedia cites those facts.  I go to that site, and if it looks good I use it.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Cthulhu basically describes my attitude when I need detailed information. When I just want simple information on things that are not sexual or political or religious, I often just go with what Wikipedia says (I mean, I have not double-checked the information on rock layers provided on Wikipedia as I was only interested in them because of DF). So, for getting a picture of a rare plant or animal, it is good, but for anything people have strong emotions about, I don't consider it really worth it (except maybe when looking for synonyms for my Google search).

Deathworks

[Mfbrew]

If they took out all of the trivia about anime/Buffy/furries/firefly/comicbooks at the bottom of every article, wikipedia would be a lot easier to love.

[Nilocy]

Wikipedia's good if _you_ want to learn stuff about a topic. Not so great if you want to show that you've learned it.

[Grakelin]

It's a great resource. It makes it easier for everybody to get information, and now there's no excuse to say you couldn't do research on something before you spew nonsense in an e-discussion.

The downside is that their community is in a perpetual state of cold war, and their regular users are megalomaniacs. I remember an article which got deleted 8 months after I rewrote it because the old article was a copy and paste from a website. But the new one wasn't. What's worse, it didn't even matter, because it was a barely notable topic.

Also, I like to add 'Wizard War', with a link to Harry Potter, on John Major's entry in 'List of British Prime Ministers', under 'Notable Events'. I do it all the time.

[Aklyon]

If they took out all of the trivia about anime/Buffy/furries/firefly/comicbooks at the bottom of every article, wikipedia would be a lot easier to love.

you must hate tvtropes, then. thats pretty much half of the examples there!

[Muz]

Wikipedia's good if _you_ want to learn stuff about a topic. Not so great if you want to show that you've learned it.

This one.

Actually, it sucks for learning anything with formulas. Not even good as a reference in that part.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't like Wikipedia due to the Rule of Notablity. Tvtropes got it right, even if they don't have the same level of information.

[Aklyon]

I don't like Wikipedia due to the Rule of Notablity. Tvtropes got it right, even if they don't have the same level of information.

You mean There Is No Such Thing As Notability?

[Rotten]

I don't like Wikipedia due to the Rule of Notablity. Tvtropes got it right, even if they don't have the same level of information.

You mean There Is No Such Thing As Notability?

TVtropes...
Can't stop...

[Snook]

TVTropes is a bottomless pit of wasted time. At least, it doesn't feel wasted until you emerge 8 hours later hungry and tired...

Also, Wikipedia is my brain extension. Need some quick learnin'? Wikipedia! It might not always be correct, complete, or comprehensive, but it fills in gaps in my knowledge bank.

[Virex]

I must say that Wikipedia can be pretty useful as an entry portal to most subjects. It's lacking massively in the chemistry department, if you've got a substance that's even slightly obscure, you're not going to find anything useful about it (much like most of the Internet actually, though you can usually get something useful from vendor sites)