It seems that the media has taken a fascination with Wikipedia -- it tends to cling onto certain companies/organizations it finds interesting (they've done this with Apple too) and report every turn. This story is legitimately interesting, though: Wikipedia entry causes pro-golfer Fuzzy Zoeller to sue. Basically someone slammed the golfer on Wikipedia. Since the poster wasn't logged in, the only trace of his identity was his IP address. The golfer sues, the IP address is traced back to a company, and will soon be traced back to an individual. If he wins a lawsuit against the individual
I mentioned it in an earlier post, a student is not allowed to site an encyclopedia on a paper. Well, Middlebury is backing me up. The history department instituted a no citing policy for wikipedia. Many high schools permit the citing of Wikipedia, but when many students received improper information from a particular article the site, the department banned the use of wiki.
I thought everyone realized that encyclopedias in general are not a proper source for citation, b
A little over a year ago John Seigenthaler posted an editorial on USA Today complaining about false information on Wikipedia that connected him to the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy. His article stirred up the question over whether Wikipedia was safe from libel lawsuits. Apparently, from another article by CNET, Wikipedia is a service provider and therefore will not be to blame for any libel cases.
Hey all, Here's an interesting article I found about Wikipedia's use by legal courts in America. It seems like many courts and judges actually rely on wikipedia quite often for what appears to be more than trivial facts. I must say I'm really surprised. However, the article claims that when Wikipedia was used it is generally to look up colloquial terms that Britannica would not have. "Booty Music" is a good example of term/phrase that a judge appealed to Wikipedia for. I think it makes some sense to appeal to Wikipedia for common-language terms like this which are not defined in more scholarly encyclopedias.
Here's my .02$ on the wikipedia research controversy. As a practical matter, research should include multiple sources to avoid inaccuracies in any reference, and facts critical to a serious paper should be cross-checked and ideally come from primary sources. Even Britannica isn't a totally accurate source of information (nod to Bumpkins for reminding us of this), and according to Nature is actually in the Wikipedia ballpark. Also, in this age of proliferating media, you have to be smart about where you get your information. Sciences and maths tend to be stronger on Wikipedia than humanities, as the latter tend to require more subjective interpretations and benefit from individual voices, something that Wikipedia is intentionally biased against. History and Literature are both fields full of grey areas, and also where there are no "hard" answers in the way that there are in science and math.
This eBay item sure tells us about Wikipedia's impact on our culture -- and about its one well-known drawback!
I first learned in 7th grade history class that encyclopedias are not a viable research tool; they function as a reference for background information. I was not allowed to quote any information I obtained from Britannica or Encarta. The same rule applies for Wikipedia. While wikipedia might be an efficient way to check to see if I won a bet with my friend on whether or not Romeo and Juliet was a flavor, or brand, of cigar, I am not going to cite in my next research paper. So why do sooo many people care if there are slight errors here and there, or if someone makes himself look to be more important then he is.
The title of this post may sound hard to believe, but since I say it's true, it is. Hey, just tell people you read it on the Internet.
If you regularly watch The Colbert Report, you know Stephen's feelings on Wikipedia. On an episode of his show, he coined the term "Wikiality." I found it hilarious. This is what he had to say about it:
"You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact. We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge."