Would you donate to this?

[Hunef]

I, along with everyone I hope, use Wikipedia as a jumping off point for research. It's trashy to cite an encyclopedia anyway--I'd much rather cite a paper in a peer-reviewed publication than the Encyclopedia Britannica, it's the exact same thing. The sources on Wikipedia are so useful that, at times, when I'm really lost as to where to start, I just jump down to the bottom of the page and read all the references until I find something to get busy with.

Indeed, I often just skip to the bottom and search for the references on Google Books and hope it's been scanned.

Screw Wikipedia, it's crap and half of the info is wrong - not to mention that many translations into Spanish are simply disastrous. I would never pay for a such a faulty product.

That's why I always use the English language articles unless it's about something very specific to a certain regio I'm looking up.

Didn't they compare Wikipedia to Encyclopædia Britannica, and found that the most edited articles on Wikipedia contained less errors than the articles on the same subjects did in Encyclopædia Britannica?

Indeed. In any case, I believe bad information is better than no information at all, and bad information that you can access easily is about as good as good information that you can access with trouble. Just be a critical thinker.

[Fulgenzio]

Didn't they compare Wikipedia to Encyclopædia Britannica, and found that the most edited articles on Wikipedia contained less errors than the articles on the same subjects did in Encyclopædia Britannica?

Indeed

You’ve posted a link to an article contained in Wikipedia where the arguments of the opponents of the reliability of Wikipedia are absolutely minimized: a lot of lines are given to that article that appeared seven years ago on “Nature”.
Not to mention that an accurate analysis of its results shows that these are not really good with regards to reliability on Wikipedia, despite the way the supporters of Wikipedia reports the event.
Jorge Cauz, the president of the hard copy encyclopedia, stated that the study (which he still considers without any merit) would just show that Wikipedia has a third more errors, according to a Dec. 15, 2005 CNET News article by Daniel Terdiman.
What that study assumes is that both the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia contains too many mistakes: Wikipedia even more.

“The brutal fact is that a work of reference which depends mainly on volunteer amateurs, whose good faith, ability and expertise are unknown, and whose contributions are largely unchecked, CANNOT be other than unreliable.”
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/28/marcel-berlins-wikipedia-comment)

[Hunef]

You’ve posted a link to an article contained in Wikipedia where the arguments of the opponents of the reliability of Wikipedia are absolutely minimized: a lot of lines are given to that article that appeared seven years ago on “Nature”.

It's called irony. I love tautologies, they're so ... tautological.

What that study assumes is that both the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia contains too many mistakes: Wikipedia even more.

Which one is free to use?

[Fulgenzio]

Wikipedia costs nothing but it is unreliable. Amateurs whose credentials are unkown shouldn't really write any Encyclopedia.
In my opinion, examples of great on-line free cultural sources are from some digital librieries, Perseus in instance.

[Hunef]

Wikipedia costs nothing but it is unreliable.

It typically contains more information than other encyclopediæ, that's why it may contain more errors.

Amateurs whose credentials are unkown shouldn't really write any Encyclopedia.

And people whose credentials are unknown shouldn't really vote for a national government.

In my opinion, examples of great on-line free cultural sources are from some digital librieries, Perseus in instance.

How are you supposed to find a specific entry there?

[mōdgethanc]

Amateurs whose credentials are unkown shouldn't really write any Encyclopedia.

Good thing not everyone who writes it is an amateur, then!

Screw Wikipedia, it's crap and half of the info is wrong - not to mention that many translations into Spanish are simply disastrous. I would never pay for a such a faulty product.

Good thing you don't have to pay for it, then!

[Fulgenzio]

It typically contains more information than other encyclopediæ, that's why it may contain more errors.

It typically contains errors because is not written by experts.
The comparison with the Encyclopaedia Britannica promoted by “Nature” was on the same entries: Wikipedia contained a third more errors (according to a Dec. 15, 2005 CNET News article by Daniel Terdiman).

Amateurs whose credentials are unkown shouldn't really write any Encyclopedia.

They shouldn’t write articles about subjects they might have not studied on a site that pretends to be an encyclopedia: encyclopedic entries are traditionally written down by renowed experts and this is what has given them a certain divulgative prestige. That’s the point. Wikipedia should be known and perceived as a free archive of (often biased) dilettantistic researches sometime partially or completely supported by some reliable source.

Also, you may think that Wikipedia is an unbiased democratic space... but you should read this.

In my opinion, examples of great on-line free cultural sources are from some digital librieries, Perseus in instance.

How are you supposed to find a specific entry there?

That example is just about a good cultural archive of any kind. The internet page I've indicated above will give you at least a couple of realiable archives where you can find several specific entries. It also explains why you should prefer them.

Citizendium "can do better".

Many Wikipedia articles are written amateurishly; often they are disconnected grab-bags of factoids, with no coherent narrative — and many have errors. In some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles to make them reflect their own biases. [let me underline this because I had the honor to meet those groups in wikipedia]There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles, so even if an article becomes very good, in time it is often degraded by many minor ill-judged tweaks.

Scholarpedia "differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:"

Each article is written by an expert.
Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information.
Each article has a curator — typically its author — who is responsible for its content.
Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it appears in the final, approved version.

[Aurinĭa]

To those who think Wikipedia can't be trusted: don't use it.
To those who think it's a useful tool / starting point: use it.

End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

[Bryon]

To those who think Wikipedia can't be trusted: don't use it.
To those who think it's a useful tool / starting point: use it.

End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

You took the words right out of my mouth. If people want to go through 10x the effort to get [the same] information quickly, let them. I'll stick to Wikipedia myself.

[JackFrost]

Hell, I even cite it in my papers and get away with it.

Deal with it.

[johntm]

Hey, I just checked out the language page on scholarpedia, and it says the following

Compare Greek /pater/ 'father' with English father, /penta/ with five , /pod/ 'foot' with foot

Doesn't "five" come from a Germanic root, or was penta just adopted into an early form of the Germanic languages then changed?

[Aurinĭa]

Hell, I even cite it in my papers and get away with it.

Deal with it.

That wouldn't work here, but several of my teachers at uni said it's a good starting point, to get an overview of the issue and some links to get started.

[JackFrost]

Doesn't "five" come from a Germanic root, or was penta just adopted into an early form of the Germanic languages then changed?

Both come from the same PIE word.

[johntm]

Doesn't "five" come from a Germanic root, or was penta just adopted into an early form of the Germanic languages then changed?

Both come from the same PIE word.

Yeah, I'm a dumbass, they stated that earlier in the paragraph but I missed it. I thought they were implying that "five" came from "penta".

[mōdgethanc]

To those who think Wikipedia can't be trusted: don't use it.
To those who think it's a useful tool / starting point: use it.

End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

Addendum: To those who think Wikipedia (or any other source) can always be trusted, don't use it.

Also, you may think that Wikipedia is an unbiased democratic space... but you should read this.

Yeah, sorry, I don't care if a 9/11 conspiracy crackpot was "censored" by people who choose to adhere to actual facts. He can blow me.

[Hoogstwaarschijnlijk]

Hell, I even cite it in my papers and get away with it.

Deal with it.

That wouldn't work here, but several of my teachers at uni said it's a good starting point, to get an overview of the issue and some links to get started.

I also used it as a starting point, and a way of refreshing my memory about certain issues (like: what exactly was post-structuralism again?). It's good as a starting point, because very often they post links under the article to the articles they used, so you can just use those articles

[Hunef]

The comparison with the Encyclopaedia Britannica promoted by “Nature” was on the same entries: Wikipedia contained a third more errors (according to a Dec. 15, 2005 CNET News article by Daniel Terdiman).

Do you mean 33.333...% or 200% more errors? And is it an absolute amount of errors of relative to the information given?

Also, you may think that Wikipedia is an unbiased democratic space... but you should read this.

Indeed, that's why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore - it's not democratic. But last time I checked, Encyclopaedia Britannica wasn't particularly democratic either.

[mōdgethanc]

Wikipedia is still more democratic than the vast majority of the Web. How many other information sites let you update the content yourself? How many even let you join their super-exclusive membership?

[Hunef]

Wikipedia is still more democratic than the vast majority of the Web. How many other information sites let you update the content yourself? How many even let you join their super-exclusive membership?

I may have exaggerated a bit, sorry. It's democratic but not democratic enough for my taste.

[Saim]

Citizendium "can do better".

Many Wikipedia articles are written amateurishly; often they are disconnected grab-bags of factoids, with no coherent narrative — and many have errors. In some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles to make them reflect their own biases. [let me underline this because I had the honor to meet those groups in wikipedia]There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles, so even if an article becomes very good, in time it is often degraded by many minor ill-judged tweaks.

Scholarpedia "differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:"

Each article is written by an expert.
Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information.
Each article has a curator — typically its author — who is responsible for its content.
Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it appears in the final, approved version.

The difference is no-one uses Citizendium or Scholarpedia.

Wikipedia is still more democratic than the vast majority of the Web. How many other information sites let you update the content yourself? How many even let you join their super-exclusive membership?

I may have exaggerated a bit, sorry. It's democratic but not democratic enough for my taste.

That's just idiotic. You don't get to decide what truth is. For that matter, neither does Wikipedia - you have to use reliable sources, irrespective of the "truth" (relying on "truth" that's not found in reliable sources is called "original research").