Conservapedia

[secondeve]

Both are equally bad because it's lay people attempting to dictate what goes into an informational passage. For instance -

I am studying philosophy. My entire life right now is consumed by it. I attempted to make an edit on Wikipedia but was overruled because two high schoolers that took a class on Soren Kierkegaard disagreed with me, and it was ruled "majority ruled."

Even better, I was misquoted on Wikipedia twice and when I tried to point this out I was told that I was taking my own opinion out of context. The reason is the misquoting of what I said backed up the bias that was in the article. I wouldn't trust either for these reasons and more.

I'll stick to traditional encyclopedias.

True. If I use it at all, it's as a jumping-off point - generally to check that something I've heard is at least believed by some people, and then to branch off and do more of my own research. I always take it with a grain of salt.

[hatsoff]

Both are equally bad because it's lay people attempting to dictate what goes into an informational passage. For instance -

I am studying philosophy. My entire life right now is consumed by it. I attempted to make an edit on Wikipedia but was overruled because two high schoolers that took a class on Soren Kierkegaard disagreed with me, and it was ruled "majority ruled."

Even better, I was misquoted on Wikipedia twice and when I tried to point this out I was told that I was taking my own opinion out of context. The reason is the misquoting of what I said backed up the bias that was in the article. I wouldn't trust either for these reasons and more.

I'll stick to traditional encyclopedias.

It's easy for newcomers to make mistakes when editing wikipedia. There are definitely community guidelines to follow. Sometimes edits that improve the article are rejected because they are either difficult to substantiate or upset a previously-reached compromise. The article for S

[apothanein kerdos]

Both are equally bad because it's lay people attempting to dictate what goes into an informational passage. For instance -

I am studying philosophy. My entire life right now is consumed by it. I attempted to make an edit on Wikipedia but was overruled because two high schoolers that took a class on Soren Kierkegaard disagreed with me, and it was ruled "majority ruled."

Even better, I was misquoted on Wikipedia twice and when I tried to point this out I was told that I was taking my own opinion out of context. The reason is the misquoting of what I said backed up the bias that was in the article. I wouldn't trust either for these reasons and more.

I'll stick to traditional encyclopedias.

It's easy for newcomers to make mistakes when editing wikipedia. There are definitely community guidelines to follow. Sometimes edits that improve the article are rejected because they are either difficult to substantiate or upset a previously-reached compromise. The article for S

[Joshua-777]

WOW, I dont like wikipedia, and I do feel it's bias against christian views, but I'm not going to start a rant about that. I think this conservapedia is a joke aswell.

I'm not picking a side, I dont like either of them

[Joshua-777]

Both are equally bad because it's lay people attempting to dictate what goes into an informational passage. For instance -

I am studying philosophy. My entire life right now is consumed by it. I attempted to make an edit on Wikipedia but was overruled because two high schoolers that took a class on Soren Kierkegaard disagreed with me, and it was ruled "majority ruled."

Even better, I was misquoted on Wikipedia twice and when I tried to point this out I was told that I was taking my own opinion out of context. The reason is the misquoting of what I said backed up the bias that was in the article. I wouldn't trust either for these reasons and more.

I'll stick to traditional encyclopedias.

It's easy for newcomers to make mistakes when editing wikipedia. There are definitely community guidelines to follow. Sometimes edits that improve the article are rejected because they are either difficult to substantiate or upset a previously-reached compromise. The article for S

[apothanein kerdos]

Right, trust Wikipedia:

The anonymous user-driven encyclopedia Wikipedia is struggling to regain people's trust after one of its most trusted and prolific editors, who claimed to be a professor of religion, was exposed as a 24-year-old from Kentucky.

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's cofounder, said yesterday contributors to the collaborative online service will be allowed to remain anonymous, but it will ask those claiming to have professional credentials to identify themselves.

Mr. Wales appears to have changed his tune since he spoke with The New Yorker.

Last week, the magazine revealed in an editor's note that it had reported the false credentials of a Wikipedia administrator and contributor calling himself Essjay and claiming to be a tenured professor. Essjay and his comments appeared in a feature story published in July, 2006. The magazine later learned that Essjay was Ryan Jordan, a young man without any advanced degrees.

"I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it," Mr. Wales told The New Yorker last week.

Critics of Wikipedia have seized on the Essjay scandal as further proof that the participatory Web site, whose supporters claim to be as reliable as traditional encyclopedias, is not to be trusted.

"What it's done is undermine more and more people's trust in Wikipedia," said Andrew Keen, a columnist at ZDNet, a technology and business Web site.

"I would strongly urge people not to trust it. You really don't know what people are up to -- what their real agendas are, whether there are corporate interests, political interests, economic interests behind the people posting."

"It's another very good reason not to trust editorless media," added Mr. Keen, author of the upcoming book, Cult of the Amateur, which examines how such participatory Web sites threaten U.S. values and the economy.

Mr. Jordan could have already reappeared on the site with a new online identity, he said.

Wikipedia has been under fire for its content on other fronts.

Frank "Fuzzy" Zoeller, a professional golfer, launched a lawsuit last month alleging one of the statements posted about him is defamatory. Last year, a long-time Wikipedia critic -- Daniel Brandt, the same man who alerted The New Yorker to Essjay's true identity -- found 142 plagiarized passages on the site.

"If you're going to intrude in the social sphere, you have to be accountable for it," Mr. Brandt, who runs a Web site called Wikipedia Watch, said yesterday.

The online encyclopedia took another blow last month when the history department at Vermont's Middlebury College banned students from using the site in citations. Don Wyatt, the department's chairman, said the latest scandal is "vindicating in an interesting way."

People can too easily take advantage of the anonymity Wikipedia offers and hide behind the personas they create, he explained, calling Mr. Wales' announcement a step in the right direction.

Prof. Wyatt was skeptical, however, that the furor over Essjay's identity would have any lasting impact on the site's popularity.

"The Wiki movement is so large and so all-encompassing and has so much steam, I doubt if the exposure of any one misrepresenting source ... is really going to force a makeover of the whole enterprise."

canada.com

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Well, yeah, that doesn't really change my view of wikipedia. I have always thought of it to be a source of quick info that was relatively accurate, but nowhere near as accurate as actual research would show. I would never cite wikipedia as a source for a paper, and indeed it isn't even allowed by most of my professors.

I am in complete agreement over the issue that wikipedia is no perfect source of information, nor is it just as good as a regular encyclopedia. But if I had to chose between conservapedia and wikipedia, I would pick wikipedia a million times over. There will be bias in anything, especially something that can be written by almost anyone, but if I had to choose, I would pick the one that DOESN'T have bias written into it's name

[hatsoff]

Are you an editor? The reason I ask is because generally only editors and the unstudied put up such a defense of what is essentially a worthless educational tool.

I have edited before, yes, but nothing significant. Perhaps your mistake is treating it as an "educational tool" instead of a reference site.

Well, yeah, that doesn't really change my view of wikipedia. I have always thought of it to be a source of quick info that was relatively accurate, but nowhere near as accurate as actual research would show. I would never cite wikipedia as a source for a paper, and indeed it isn't even allowed by most of my professors.

I am in complete agreement over the issue that wikipedia is no perfect source of information, nor is it just as good as a regular encyclopedia.

Exactly.

Edited March 9, 2007 by hatsoff

[Joshua-777]

I just looked at it, I do believe it can grow to something alright. just ya theres a huge lack of info,

[The Lorax]

Are you an editor? The reason I ask is because generally only editors and the unstudied put up such a defense of what is essentially a worthless educational tool.

AK, I think you're being a little hard on Wikipedia. It's definitely not to be used as an academic tool, but as a casual reference it's very useful. Jimmy Wales explicitly says it should be used casually.

I'm not an editor, BTW, and here I am defending it.

Conservapedia is great too...but for its comic value.