Wikipedia postings - Warning

**Frixxxx** · 01-19-2010, 09:52 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I must warn you of a terrifying predicament. There is a propensity to look at pages in wikipedia and post them as fact. I cringe when I say this but, this is a fallacy and a travesty. I know that it shakes the foundation for the most wikipedia faithful.

If you have ever watched news reports or have kids in school, you will come to find out that quoting wikipedia is as bad as claiming first hand knowledge of an incident that happened a hundred years ago. Because, even under their own admission, they cannot support 100% accuracy at any given time on their site. Their disclaimer, they claim that wikipedia may not be valid.

I have two college kids and both will tell you they don’t use wikipedia except to get a list of books to research at the library. Some, if not all, refuse any term paper to contain references to the site.

I also would like to draw your attention to a tab on the top of each article called discussion. This will also open your eyes as to how people post information as well as disputes on accuracy and how to properly input information.

Please, it is not that I personally hate, despise, or detest this site. I know that it was set up with the intentions to bring people together to assemble a free and accurate body of knowledge to be reviewed and studied on every aspect of the world and beyond. But its intentions have been met by hackers, deviants, and just plain misinformed individuals which has led it into a realm of questionable data collections.

I implore the users of wikipedia to think about where they get their information when engaging in serious conversations here or on any other site. Use it to find other discussions or genuinely accepted literary works. I hope this provides insight as to why I repeatedly caution the use of this site.

Sincerely,

Frixxxx

**Bullitt** · 01-19-2010, 10:09 PM

There was an article about this website in the WSJ a month ago and it mentioned how the moderators are just so burned out with fixing disinformation and false media that the site has recently been going towards the wayside. It's pretty clear that the work force and media has become over reliant on this simple, once effective website, but it's outgrown itself. People don't want to pay for information these days in the 'great recessions' so they instead subject themselves to disinformation and formulate opinions based on what's written in a blog.

I think it's cool to look up movies or 1980's bands on Wikipedia, but anyone using it as an academic source... yikes.

Tell your kids to try Google Scholar.

**Steadygain** · 01-19-2010, 10:09 PM

Would like to add to Frixxxx's observation that:

Very few references could solidly be established as absolute and undeniable .....

but as a MB -- the Wikipedia must stand as an 'unshakable foundation'

Whenever used as a reference --- then it ends all debates

and quells any confusion

Will end by asking:
Does anybody really know what time it is ???
Does anybody really care ? oh what time ??
And so I can't imagine why ????

OK --- now good night my little tikes

**James48843** · 01-19-2010, 10:34 PM

Well Frixxx, you are right- anyone can enter or edit a Wikipedia article.

In fact, I just now created a starter stub for TSPTALK.

It's here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSPTALK

Please feel free to go add to the article any factual, verifiable information you think would add to the world's knowledge of our little home here.

have at it.

**Frixxxx** · 01-19-2010, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by James48843

Well Frixxx, you are right- anyone can enter or edit a Wikipedia article.

In fact, I just now created a starter stub for TSPTALK.

It's here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSPTALK

Please feel free to go add to the article any factual, verifiable information you think would add to the world's knowledge of our little home here.

have at it.

I am not an expert on TSPTalk origin, history, and key players. Hence, I should NOT be updating anything on TSPTalk. The people who run, administer, and moderate the site should be the contributors and source of references.

**phil** · 01-19-2010, 11:04 PM

The fact is, there is an editorial policy on Wikipedia, and they're not funded by Rupert Murdoch, unlike the WSJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...es#Enforcement

I don't really blame people for being suspicious of content. After all, we sent troops to Iraq based upon completely false information. In the end, we all pay for that, and can expect no recompensation from the Republicans, Congress, or the media, particularly the WSJ editorial staff.

The joke's on us.

**James48843** · 01-19-2010, 11:13 PM

Well, the entry I listed lasted for all of five minutes before an editor deleted it. I have contested the deletion, citing the refernces to the criteria of inclusion in Wikipedia, and the news events surrounding TSPTALK in 2006 through 2008, when we challenged the FTRIB's proposed changes to federal regulations, including the 4,000 signatures turned in in opposition to the changes.

We'll see if their moderator reconsiders the deletion.

P.S.- Wikipedia is patrolled regularly, and is far more selective these days than it was perhaps three or four years ago. Today they say an article needs to be significant to make it into Wiki. We'll see whether an article on TSPTALK can cut the mustard. I should know shortly if they will let me post a stub on it.

**JTH** · 01-19-2010, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by James48843

Well, the entry I listed lasted for all of five minutes before an editor deleted it. I have contested the deletion, citing the refernces to the criteria of inclusion in Wikipedia, and the news events surrounding TSPTALK in 2006 through 2008, when we challenged the FTRIB's proposed changes to federal regulations, including the 4,000 signatures turned in in opposition to the changes.

We'll see if their moderator reconsiders the deletion.

P.S.- Wikipedia is patrolled regularly, and is far more selective these days than it was perhaps three or four years ago. Today they say an article needs to be significant to make it into Wiki. We'll see whether an article on TSPTALK can cut the mustard. I should know shortly if they will let me post a stub on it.

6,000 Post!!!!

**WorkFE** · 01-19-2010, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Steadygain

Will end by asking:
Does anybody really know what time it is ???
Does anybody really care ? oh what time ??
And so I can't imagine why ????

OK --- now good night my little tikes

It's 5 o'clock somewhere