BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:46 PM

Amos, frankly I assumed the word would be well-known here, where there's often such whingeing about "navel-gazing singer/songwriters." And I go by "Stately, plump." (I'd make the "S" huge, but I don't know how).

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:39 AM

But is it worth contemplating Sinbad as the source?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:35 AM

Omphaloscepsis: Contemplating one's navel as an aid to meditation.

This word seems to be relatively new, at least the Merriam-Webster "Word of the Day" column claims it to have been invented only in the 1920s. It turns up in only a few dictionaries and seems to be a word that survives more for the chance to show off one's erudition than as a real aid to communication. If so, this article is a further perpetuation of its unreal status. It is formed from two Greek words, omphalos, "navel, boss, hub", and skepsis, "the act of looking; enquiry". The former turns up in words such as omphalotomy, "cutting of the umbilical cord", in the related omphalopsychic for one of a group of mystics who practised gazing at the navel as a means of inducing hypnotic reverie, and omphalomancy, an ancient form of divination in which the number of children a woman would bear was determined from counting the knots in her umbilical cord at birth.

---

Just so plump stately Buck Mulligan doesn't baffle us all with BS.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:11 AM

I was surfing a few of the folk articles on Wikipedia that I have an interest in and I figure I should start a new thread for requests for help with editing. For example the article on Tim Hardin is just a mess.

Most pop or rock articles have photos, infoboxes, discographies and more but the folk articles are usually bare bones bios. Would anybody appreciate it if I did start a thread listing Folk topics on Wikipedia in need of additional info? Would that be a BS thread or a music thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:31 PM

Come to think of it, 'hodge-podge collections of OPINIONS' applies to dictionaries too...

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM

"A hodge-podge collection of OPINIONS, not fact."


All encyclopedias, dating back even to the ancient Greeks are just all 'hodge-podge collections of OPINIONS' - many of these opinions have been believed as fact for centuries, though... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:54 PM

Anyone looking for authoritative, definitive, unquestionable sources, has no business looking on the web. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Omphaloscepsis, maybe.....

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 12:40 PM

Is anybody looking into the possibility that Sinbad might have entered the disinformation himself, in order to promote his career?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Snuffy
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:57 AM

Never mind compaing it with Britannica, how does Wikipedia compare with Mudcat?

The crap and misinformation can be edited out of Wikipedia - here in Mudcat you may post corrections till you're blue in the face, but you can't get rid of the original misinformation: it is here for ever. And somebody will find it and trot it out again - and again.

Just ask Malcolm Douglas.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Scoville
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:18 AM

I reiterate: Britannica may overall be more reliable for what it offers, but it does not offer as much, is not as helpful in terms of relating topics, and it is frequently academic to the point of sucking all the life and nuance out of entries, which matters to some of us in terms of deciding where we're going to look next for authoritative sources.

However, I agreed that Wikipedia was a blog and I said that I did not approve of its use as an academic source. If I were a teacher, I would not penalize a student for admitting that s/he started by looking at Wikipedia, or even included it in a "works consulted" (which, as opposed to a "works cited" or bibliography, includes everything, even if it wasn't directly used in the final text), but I would penalize if it appeared as a cited source.

I was a history major and work in a library. I've had a lot of practice sorting out good information from B.S. Wikipedia contains both, but it deserves neither to be worshipped nor to be written off.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:57 AM

there was an Nyorker article a few months ago and they compared the number of errors in Wikipedia and Britannica (and there were almost as many in Britannica) but Wikipedia had something like 10times the number of entries.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:37 AM

"Just don't quote it as a reliable source. It ain't."

What is?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:35 AM

And if you find something that is really that off-base, stop bitching and fix it. That's the whole point of Wikipedia.

Fix it? Sorry, but I have better things to do with my time, particularly when there ARE real authoritative and reliable resources to be consulted.

To those who enjoy playing with WikiBlogia for the "entertainment value", I say have at it. No skin off my nose.

Just don't quote it as a reliable source. It ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Scoville
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 08:32 AM

"the oft-cited uber-authority . . ."

uber-auithority"? Hardly. Wickipedia is a BLOG. A hodge-podge collection of OPINIONS, not fact.

Correction follows: it is an astounding repository of MIS-information "

I won't argue about Wikipedia being a blog, but it is neither an uberauthority nor a "hodge-podge of opinions"/"astounding repository of MIS-information". At least, not universally. There is some crap in there and there are also some very good articles. (And if you find something that is really that off-base, stop bitching and fix it. That's the whole point of Wikipedia.)

Yes, it can be problematic when people treat it as the be-all and end-all, but anyone who would trust a single source--any single source--without cross-referencing it doesn't know anything about doing research. Wikipedia is a good place to start, although I agree that it should not be cited as an academic source. I think it's easily as good a place to start as Britannica, which, as was noted above, usually doesn't give you as much information, doesn't link topics to the extent that Wikipedia can (giving you fewer clues to follow to further your research with more acceptable sources), and may be outdated unless you either splurge on the latest edition for yourself or your library is unusually well-funded. I've also found that, on certain topics, Britannica can be dry and academic almost as far as missing the point; some things are better explained by somebody who has been knee-deep in them and not simply observed them from the ivory tower.

Subject: folkOpedia
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 08:14 AM

link to folkOpedia on my homepage

We have started a folk area with Wiki style format and syntax. There are editors and contributors (small in number) which menas editing is controlled. For the very reasons above.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:54 AM

First, a non-Wiki observation: No newspaper story is accurate! That is, if you are really familiar with the subject or issue, there's going to be something incomplete, questionable, or just plain wrong with any newspaper story you read.

On that principle, I decided to see if Wiki had an article on the professional field in which I've spent my working life, court reporting, and see what its quality was.

I was pleased to find that there was indeed an article in Wiki. I read it closely, and I found only one problem, a comment that "most court reporters" do XYZ. From my forty-six-year knowledge of court reporting and of XYZ, I found that bald statement highly questionable. I edited it, making it, "many court reporters" do XYZ. This is certainly true, while avoiding the overclaim.

Now that's a piddling matter, and I was both pleased and surprised to find the quality of the article.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Willie-O
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:48 AM

I think the most interesting thing about Wikipedia is the infrastructure they have developed to remain open to corrections, additions and editing, while if not ensuring full-time accuracy, at least labelling articles as to whether the content can be deemed reasonably reliable. If you find a mistake, YOU CAN FIX IT!

I've contributed a few things...it's a great resource, and FAR MORE than a "blog".

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 05:46 AM

Unfortunately, wikipedia by its very nature is is quite open to vandalism. Most general vandalism is caught rather quickly but there is also a very strong anti-wikipedia movement, some members of which resort to types of vandalism not likely to be noticed quickly. Usually these vandals are former wikipedians with sour grapes who know how to avoid detection. Your usual wikivandal signs on only to make unhelpful edits. once spotted, another editor can track back through their history and revert those edits. the more egregious and sneaky vandals will make a long serioes of small but useful edits and then in between those, sneak in something rather vile into an article that is not goverened or watched by any wikiproject. They'll then go back to making normal edits, brying the vandalism in their log.

All this is Greek to most people I'm sure. I spend at least 45 minutes a day adding to Wikipedia on a variety of subjects and at least 15 of those minutes involves reverting vandalism. It gets a little tiresome at times but I enjoy creating or adding to articles on subjects I am familiar with, mostly music, history and literature.

Wikipedia has its faults, but it is also a fascinating way to waste a few hours when bored. In surfing through the pages, I've managed to learn more in a week on some subjects than i did in an entire semester of Graduate school. Even then, when reading up on new subjects, an editor can comeacross some minor fixes needing to be made and affect them.

If Wikipedia has one fault, it is in sourcing of statements. There are several different styles of inline citations and the current preferred method is a little complex for the beginner. As a result, some new editors just skip them altogether which usually results in their article getting deleted if it's a new one.

The other big fault I see is what i call wikifascism - that is people who simply live to attack newly created articles for notability and for a myriad of technical issies. They'll do a google search on a subject and if it doesn't get a undred thousand hits, they deem it not noteworthy and nominate it for deletion. The inherent issue with that is that many historical subjects that could use an article don't get one or get one many times that is deleted becuase google, a search egnine that favors new events and topics, doesn't have enough hits for the topic. I've googled certain mythological terms well-known in anthropological literature or in folklore and come up with jusrt a few hits.

Enough about that, let me wind up my wiki-rant by suggesting that MudCatters consider putting in some time over there when they can. There are a number of topics needing Folk Expertise. The article on Sacred Steel (the slide guitar tradition) for example could use some help. It's just a stub. Also, adding to the biographies of our esteemed folkies would be one way to help. Some of the bios are barely there to begin with. Adding some new ones is also helpful.

I'll come back to this thread with a list of Folk Topics that could use input.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:53 PM

You'll notice the the BBC and NBC and CBS and Fox and CNN...and the New York Times...don't get everything right all the time.

Fox News doesn't get things right MOST (if any) of the time-
so its a particularly apt metaphor for WikiBlogia.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 11:02 AM

a serious researcher will take the info found in WIKI and double check, if there's any doubt. Many, many general articles are clear, helpful and basically accurate. You'll notice the the BBC and NBC and CBS and Fox and CNN...and the New York Times...don't get everything right all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 10:25 AM

the oft-cited uber-authority

"uber-auithority"? Hardly. Wickipedia is a BLOG. A hodge-podge collection of OPINIONS, not fact.

Correction follows:

it is an astounding repository ofMIS-information

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 08:33 PM

At least WikiPedia is not like some others which 'already know all the answers' and deliberately squash everything to conform with Religious Straitjacketed Thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: MAG
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 07:55 PM

Wikipedia is the first to say, right up front, that nothing in it is checked for accuracy and you use the info at your own risk.

Its value IS in how it can point you to vetted information. This is a fine distinction to the students I see who use it everyday, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:14 PM

Yeah Donuel......that's definitely Richard Jeni.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:49 PM

Are you sure Richard Jeni is not the personage to whom MSNBC is referring?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:45 PM

This week MSNBC said that Richard Crenna had shot himself in the head and later died in the hospital

All other sources I found on google said he died of pancreatic cancer.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:39 PM

But such obvious foolery is the least of the weakness. People looking stuff up can & will easily recognize that crap and ignore it. It's the errors and biases that appear plausible, that don't necessarily jump out at the less-than-fully-knowledgable (which is pretty much who's looking stuff up after all) that undermine WP's usefulness.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: HuwG
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

I contribute some articles to Wikipedia; local, geological, some musical. I find it increasingly annoying to have to deal with the anonymous twerps who think it a clever idea to add "Micheal (sic)is gay hahahaha" to serious articles. It often takes days to remove such vandalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:27 PM

I can't recall now whether it was Nature or Science magazine, but one of the two published an article some months ago about the accuracy of Wikipedia. They chose about twenty entries at random on academic and scientific subjects (as opposed to pop-star biographies or political entries—which, incidentally, usually include a tag warning that this article is biased) and compared them with entries on the same subjects in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This comparison of articles was conducted by acknowledged experts in the various fields in question.

They found that the Wikipedia entries contained an average of four inaccuracies or mistakes. The entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica contained an average of three inaccuracies or mistakes. But—the survey noted that the entries in Wikipedia were generally considerably longer and contained more information than those in Britannica. Along with this, the info in Wikipedia was, in general, more up to date. So they declared it a wash. A tie.

They also noted that errors in Wikipedia entries can be corrected within minutes, whereas errors in Britannica have to wait for the next revision, or the yearbook, to be corrected. This is an immense advantage over hard-copy encyclopedias. Another immense advantage is that Wikipedia is free and it pops onto your screen with a few mouse-clicks. A full set of the Encyclopedia Britannica at Amazon lists for $520.00, and shipping weight is 144.8 lbs.

I recently had a couple of articles published in a music magazine on the early history of troubadours and wandering minstrels. I found Wikipedia to be an excellent source of information, and it steered me in a number of directions that it might not have occurred to me to investigated had it not been for the various links it offered. I also have a fairly substantial hard-copy library on the same subject, so all of my facts were checked and cross-checked.

NO source of information, no matter how authoritative, should be accepted wholesale. Cross-check with other sources, and during the whole research process, make sure your brain is in gear.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:22 AM

Well wiki is no worse than the newspapers... remember when the Telegraph ran Dave Swarbrick's obituary?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

okay, so it's just his career that died. That's a simple correction, not a huge boo-boo.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: mack/misophist
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:27 AM

Ars Technica recently did an interesting experiment. Some grad students were asked to read 2 wikipedia articles, one in their field of expertise and one outside of it, then rate each for accuracy. They consistantly rated the acticles within their specialities higher than those outside them. The test really reflected wikipedia's reputation, not it's accuracy in uncontroversial technical subjects.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 09:48 AM

Sinbad is actually VERY well known in popular culture, as a comedian, an actor, and a TV personality who has hosted programs and segments.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: GUEST,A student
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:39 AM

wikipedia is a god send to all off us students!!!! many an essay has been finished the night before using the legend that is wikipedia!!!! if it went it might mean id have to start doing my own work . . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:37 AM

Spaw, apparently no one in the contributor community knew or cared enough. You could write an article; that's how it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:36 AM

Which makes sense, since a great body of Wikipedia is directly lifted from the 1911 EB, now in PD.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:35 AM

On the other hand, Richard Jeni's suicide (3/10?) went virtually unreported.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:35 AM

"The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:33 AM

The vast majority of information I have read on Wikipedia has been thoughtful and complete and accurate as far as I could find out comparing it to other sources.

It has an encyclopedic range of topics. I don't think one article about some little known actor is any indication of the state of health of the whole.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:32 AM

Wikipedia should NEVER be cited as an authoritative source. It is, however, very useful indeed as a pointer to potentially authoritative sources, and it's a lot of fun to browse.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:20 AM

Oh, yes. But confirm what you read -- even print gets it wrong sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Bee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:18 AM

Although Wikipedia can be shaky and is subject to vandalism, I still think it is an astounding repository of information. In most cases, at least in the sciences, it provides links to solid confirming information.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:14 AM

Yup. Another example of the problems you face if you trust the World Wide Web to supply the truth.

Subject: BS: Wikipedia Boo-Boo
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:11 AM

It's been suggested from time to time that Mudcat convert its music resources to the wiki-way. Now Wikipedia-- the oft-cited uber-authority that, along with Google, has convinced wannabe experts that you can seem to know everything about a subject without really knowing a damn thing about it-- has been pantsed.


Wikipedia falsely reports Sinbad's death
By KELLI KENNEDY
Associated Press Writer

MIAMI (AP) -- Actor-comedian Sinbad had the last laugh after his Wikipedia entry announced he was dead, the performer said Thursday. Rumors began circulating Saturday regarding the posting, said Sinbad, who first got a telephone call from his daughter. The gossip quieted, but a few days later the 50-year-old entertainer said the phone calls, text messages and e-mails started pouring in by the hundreds.

"Saturday I rose from the dead and then died again," the Los Angeles-based entertainer told The Associated Press in a phone interview.

The St. Petersburg-based company, which describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," leaves it to a vast user community to catch factual errors and other problems. Apparently, someone edited it to say Sinbad died of a heart attack. By the time the error was caught, e-mail links of the erroneous page had been forwarded to hundreds of people.

A note on Sinbad's Wikipedia page Thursday night said the site has been temporarily protected from editing to deal with vandalism.

~Susan