Essay talk:Wikis and Information

"This is why many schools are not allowing the use of Wikipedia" - beyond Junior High, encyclopedias are not appropriate reference sources for any paper. It's not about Wikipedia, it's about using primary and perhaps secondary sources. Emerald (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

True - however, the "no Wikipedia" rule goes beyond your common research paper for many teachers. I've had instances where high school teachers wouldn't mind students using an encyclopedia for information, such as making a poster board for biology or decorating a tissue box with random facts about a country for Spanish. They would solely reject Wikipedia, though, based on its reliability. Or maybe they're just bad teachers... ~SuperHamster Talk 03:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. I dunno, I have checked literally thousands of factoids via WP and it hasn't let me down yet. I suspect the judgments being made are premature or made in the absence of adequate information. Purple (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is always the argument that "anyone can edit Wikipedia, so it is not reliable", which of course has merit to it. But I've also noticed that a large number of people I've listened to (students, teachers, and librarians) at my school don't really know at all how Wikipedia functions behind the scenes, such as what their policies are, how they deal with vandalism, the large number of editors, etc. Heck, I read a research paper just the other day that my classmate wrote on whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source, and he was wrong about several major aspects of Wikipedia, such as what qualifies as a reliable source (of course, one of his sources was Human Events, so who can blame him?). I also think that there is a "grudge" that many teachers hold against Wikipedia. I think it's safe to say that Wikipedia's quality and reliability has considerably grows every year; however, I think many teachers are stuck with experiences they've had with Wikipedia in its early days, and their opinion of it hasn't changed since. My English teacher is a counter-example: last year, she allowed us to use Wikipedia as a source of information for our information speeches, because she said that she considers Wikipedia to be a reliable source. However, she said that she didn't let her students from years prior use Wikipedia. But don't get me wrong - Wikipedia is still definitely vulnerable to errors. But I do place trust in Wikipedia's longer, obviously-well-worked-on articles when I'm looking up factoids for my homework. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A groundbreaking experiment in volunteer crowdsourcing gone somewhat far from wrong

Wikipedia. That is all. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the intro.

The question which the introduction seems to pose is:

• But is the wiki a lofty goal to create a trusted database?

I'm not convinced this initial question is very clear.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I can fix this.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Perhaps you could make the conclusion answer the initial rhetorical question as well?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I will work on it a bit more before I start working on my next essay.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've changed your initial question to:

• "Can the wiki, with its ability to let the public at large, be a reliable source for serious research?"

Presumably you mean something like - "Can the wiki, with its ability to let the public at large freely edit, be ......"

Or something like that?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism and I did fix that error.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have now done that. I'm not quite sure how to politely ask this question, so I guess that I'll just have to go for it. I wonder if you could you tell me if English your first language? I'm not being sarcastic - it would just answer a few questions which arise from your writing style.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No. My native language is Danish, although I wish to contribute this wiki. Sorry if my writing is not proper. I will have to work on it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Your written English is actually pretty good, better than some native speakers I know personally. I do notice a direct focussed forthright style. I also notice a userbox which may help explain that, based on my acquaintance with other people on that spectrum. Live long, and prosper! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I am glad to know my written English is decent. Could you give me a link to this userbox? I couldn't find it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is the Asperger's userbox. In my (slightly) twisted view, that is consistent with a "direct focussed forthright style." best, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that we need to give a bit of slack to non-native speakers - but consider the second sentence in the essay:

• The wiki is a kind that one could insert information and create a database.

It's difficult to imagine a native speaker (even Proxima) coming up with that.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will work on it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)