Print
E-mail
Comment
Use Wikipedia 'facts' at your own risk
By VINCENT MASSARO
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things: of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Wikipedia."
Think I'm quoting wrong? Go look it up. Just make sure you check Wikipedia first.
But don't leave our favorite free online encyclopedia quite yet.
Think I'm quoting wrong? Go look it up. Just make sure you check Wikipedia first.
But don't leave our favorite free online encyclopedia quite yet.
Exam week is approaching, and I have to start researching somewhere for all the papers I have to write.
Speaking of research, in Friday's Alligator, Andrew Meyer wrote a guest column about Ron Paul and cited the encyclopedia's Web site in the second line to define the term "political radical."
Personally, I would have referred to the sixth edition of "The American Political Dictionary," published in 1982: "A radical is generally regarded as a leftist or rightist who is extreme in demands for change."
At least I had to go to my bookshelf for that one. And no one has ever pasted tidbits of misinformation into any of the books I own ... except for that illustrated Bible, but never mind.
That's why the first rule of Wikipedia is do not quote Wikipedia. It's also the second rule.
According to Wikipedia, "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity."
But how do I know for sure if that's true? The thing just told me it can't guarantee its own validity. I don't know what to believe anymore.
Well, according to Wikipedia, "'What I Believe' is the title of two essays by Bertrand Russell (1925) and E.M. Forster (1938) espousing secular humanism."
I've taken Wikipedia with a grain of iodized salt ever since I looked up the exact date the Titanic sank, only to find a pornographic photo.
Of course, that was long after one of my high school teachers based an entire class discussion on a questionable definition of a literary term he lifted from Wikipedia.
P.S.: Check Wikipedia for the origin of the phrase "grain of salt."
Wikipedia is a starting point, but it's not the final answer. The site says, "Do not rely upon any information found in Wikipedia without independent verification."
Wait, can someone independently verify that for me?
Wikipedia is the fast food of reference material: You go there when nothing else is open (like a library), you don't realize how much you've consumed until it's too late and, if you eat enough of it, it will probably kill you.
You may think Wikipedia is harmless, but even the site itself advises visitors to use it at their own risk.
"Please be aware that any information you may find in Wikipedia may be inaccurate, misleading, dangerous or illegal."
It's been said that the winners write history.
I'm willing to say Wikipedia is written (and edited) by winners, too - conspiracy theorists, propagandists in the CIA and geeks in their parents' basements. I wish I could be a geek, but I don't have access to a basement.
Anyway, I know I would welcome the chance to continually edit my writing, as long as no one else were able to touch it.
Take my column last week, for example. After fretting about cell phones giving me cancer and then swearing them off for good, I was struck with a much bigger problem, which I forgot to mention: contracting deadly communicable diseases from pay phones.
Vincent Massaro is a senior majoring in journalism. His column appears on Mondays.
Speaking of research, in Friday's Alligator, Andrew Meyer wrote a guest column about Ron Paul and cited the encyclopedia's Web site in the second line to define the term "political radical."
Personally, I would have referred to the sixth edition of "The American Political Dictionary," published in 1982: "A radical is generally regarded as a leftist or rightist who is extreme in demands for change."
At least I had to go to my bookshelf for that one. And no one has ever pasted tidbits of misinformation into any of the books I own ... except for that illustrated Bible, but never mind.
That's why the first rule of Wikipedia is do not quote Wikipedia. It's also the second rule.
According to Wikipedia, "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity."
But how do I know for sure if that's true? The thing just told me it can't guarantee its own validity. I don't know what to believe anymore.
Well, according to Wikipedia, "'What I Believe' is the title of two essays by Bertrand Russell (1925) and E.M. Forster (1938) espousing secular humanism."
I've taken Wikipedia with a grain of iodized salt ever since I looked up the exact date the Titanic sank, only to find a pornographic photo.
Of course, that was long after one of my high school teachers based an entire class discussion on a questionable definition of a literary term he lifted from Wikipedia.
P.S.: Check Wikipedia for the origin of the phrase "grain of salt."
Wikipedia is a starting point, but it's not the final answer. The site says, "Do not rely upon any information found in Wikipedia without independent verification."
Wait, can someone independently verify that for me?
Wikipedia is the fast food of reference material: You go there when nothing else is open (like a library), you don't realize how much you've consumed until it's too late and, if you eat enough of it, it will probably kill you.
You may think Wikipedia is harmless, but even the site itself advises visitors to use it at their own risk.
"Please be aware that any information you may find in Wikipedia may be inaccurate, misleading, dangerous or illegal."
It's been said that the winners write history.
I'm willing to say Wikipedia is written (and edited) by winners, too - conspiracy theorists, propagandists in the CIA and geeks in their parents' basements. I wish I could be a geek, but I don't have access to a basement.
Anyway, I know I would welcome the chance to continually edit my writing, as long as no one else were able to touch it.
Take my column last week, for example. After fretting about cell phones giving me cancer and then swearing them off for good, I was struck with a much bigger problem, which I forgot to mention: contracting deadly communicable diseases from pay phones.
Vincent Massaro is a senior majoring in journalism. His column appears on Mondays.
article tools
|
blogs
July 2nd, 2009 CorrectionThe UF-Georgia football game is held annually at the Jacksonville Municipal Stadium. The contract for the game is between UF and the city of Jacksonville. An article in Tuesday’s paper stated otherwise. |
1 comment(s) |
Add your comment below. Comments in no way reflect the positions of The Independent Florida Alligator or Campus Communications. |
Please register to leave a comment.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
Excuse me? wrote on Dec 3, 2007 2:31 AM:
" Wikipedia tells you when information has been found that does not meet honest standards, and they only through in "dangerous and illegal" just as a precaution that pertains to the rare event that something written is not up to snuff. The website isn't a waterfall of badly found sources, it's just the rarest point in which somebody finds a problem.
Wikipedia is not the last source to find, just because you can not tolerate the concept or occasional missteps. It's the first place to go when you are online and reading up on something. They work very hard in maintaining a legitimate organization made up of learning.
P.S.: Ron Paul is a radical. He wants to end all federal programs, return to an 18th century form of currency, and leave Iraq hands-down, with no reparations that Iraq is due for the invasion. He is as radical as you can get. "
Wladimir wrote on Dec 3, 2007 2:03 PM:
" "He wants to end all federal programs, return to an 18th century form of currency, and leave Iraq hands-down, with no reparations that Iraq is due for the invasion"
Is not 18th century, The gold standard was abadoned by US on 1933.
If you want to repair the damage done to Iraq. YOU MUST START BY APOLOGIZE TO THE IRAQUI PEOPLE. You should also apologize to the people in Iran and Chile for OVERTRHOWING DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENTS.... What about that?
Of course US owes Iraq Lots of reparations... but the moral ones COMES FIRST...
A war started on LIES can't end in a good way. Unless you want lies to win over truth. "
Hardboiledegg wrote on Dec 3, 2007 2:25 PM:
" Hey Vinny whats a matter wid you?? you sez if I s a look upa wikipedia on wikipedia the definition is gonna suck? and what they splane to me isa wrong thats a bad bad and you nose I nose where the wiki in wiki pedia comes a from and you be wrtie it's a not what they sez It's a Hawaiian
Hows about that "
Er, What? wrote on Dec 3, 2007 2:40 PM:
" People shouldn't believe or trust everything that they read on the internet without researching the facts first. And those people that do believe everything on the internet are the ones that think that some prince from Africa will give them thousands of dollars. "
cornlocase,see-o wrote on Dec 3, 2007 2:49 PM:
" i see you have rectified your chance at bad, situational humor.
"
Randy wrote on Dec 3, 2007 3:30 PM:
" Always distrust theinformation you get. "Risk" is present in any medium -- and YOU have to decide how much trust to assign to each source. Wikipedia is probably wrong more often than most books and newspapers, but at least it can be fixed after the fact and the audit trail is there for anyone to see. The one source you can "trust" is the White House...they ALWAYS lie. "
HaeB wrote on Dec 4, 2007 12:47 AM:
" "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity"
- neither do Britannica, the New York Times, the OED or CNN. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-Wikipedia_disclaimers "
Constipated Monk wrote on Dec 4, 2007 4:48 PM:
" Had to write an article about how Wikipedia is publicly edited and therefore not totally trustworthy? Jeez, we were really reaching here, weren't we? "
Michael wrote on Dec 4, 2007 7:00 PM:
" Your taking a pretty good beating here already so I just leave you alone. "
Nick wrote on Dec 4, 2007 7:51 PM:
" Only ten comments? I guess the Ron Paul whack jobs haven't found this yet.
Great observation:
That's why the first rule of Wikipedia is do not quote Wikipedia. It's also the second rule. "
Panama Red wrote on Dec 5, 2007 1:32 AM:
" Yo college kid that takes unnecessary cheap shots in an attempt to prove that you could be a real editorialist one day.... There was a news magazine segment that aired on one of the major networks last year. In this segment, a study was completed that compared entries in Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia, and the same amount of fact errors occurred in each.... C'mon, I'm a journalist, you're sort of a journalist, and you know that copy editors aren't always perfect. Wikipedia is just as reliable as Britannica (which is far from perfectly reliable), and eventually it'll be accepted as that.... But no, you shouldn't be quoting Wikipedia in any article - it's just awkward and slows down the read. "
A. Nonymous wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:23 AM:
And here we are, well over a year out and just as "the powers that be" wanted it, this entire incident has become a distant memory, the actions of the police rubber-stamped by the FDLE (was there any doublt?) and it's back to business as usual, the utterly wrong actions of the organizing group ACCENT and UPD notwithstanding. The low-average IQ paid thugs acted like good attack dogs at the behest of corporate droid-in-training Max Tyroler.
Kerry didn't have to come to answer questions but he did. Apparently ACCENT saw their job as ensuring he didn't have to answer anything that wasn't a softball. You know, so as not to embarrass UF. Well that sure worked like a charm. Kerry later stated he could have handled the situation and that he had never seen a spectacle like that in his entire political career. Yeah, UF certainly left an impression on him.
Tyroler ignored Kerry's wishes who stated specifically that he was willing to engage Meyer. That was the critical issue. Meyer made no threats against Kerry, he was loud but was certainly coherent and he had been given the floor.
Okay, he didn't follow all the protocol of their little staged tea party. Kerry himself was a bit of an "agitator", a "bratty" young man who defiantly spoke out against the establishment, after having been part of their war machine. And he got heat for it. He was stating what he thought needed to be said. Do you think a combat veteran and senator can't handle a heated exchange with a college kid?
And you're wrong - the so-called "debate" between Meyer and Kerry didn't get heated, it was never given a chance to get started. "