Wikipedia?

[sdelmonte]

So this morning I listened to the daily computer tips feature on the radio by a woman named Kim Kommando. She's usually fairly smart about computers and the Net. Today, however, she told people to never, ever use Wikipedia. After all, if anyone can post anything there, it's totally unreliable.

Funny thing is, while I agree that you have to be really careful with such sites, I also find it to be a very good database of fannish information. Missed everything DC Comics published last year? It's all there, in succinct and accurate (and often unbiased) form. Have a question about minor Star Wars characters? it's there, or at the Star Wars spinoff site, Wookieepedia. And why is this so? Because anyone can post there, or correct anything there. And because when it comes to fannish matters (or any pop culture matters), WE are the experts. And we take this seriously.

Oh, and to be honest, I have used Wikipedia (not exclusively) to look up work-related information such as birthd dates and spellings for artists. As one reference tool in a toolbox of many, it's pretty good.

I'm curious who else uses Wikipedia, and what for. And who else has actually posted or editied an article there. (Look for the article on Firestorm the Nuclear Man. I wrote the original version of it shortly before the new series started. I take great pride in it.)

If you don't use Wikipedia, is it because you don't trust it? And if you don't use it, what do you use in lieu of an old-fashioned paper encyclopedia?

Comments

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

I use Wikipedia, but I'm very careful what I use it for. And if I were stil l teaching, I wouldn't accept it as a website source for my students' papers.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I use Wikipedia almost every day. For mundane stuff it's great. For most political, religious, and historical stuff, the areas which I gather get the most abuse/vandalism, it's still great, because they do actually police it, and most problems are corrected almost as soon as they occur. Wikipedia's bad press has, unfortunately, hardened into Conventional Wisdom for some people.

Most of the people who screw up Wiki are, I suspect, like virus writers -- they have their own anarchistic reasons for peeing in everyone's punch bowl.

I also just Google the hell out of stuff, get a half-dozen references, and take the average. :)

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

I use wiki primarily for verification of half remembered trivia.

I also use it a lot to provide informative links to people when I mention something, because it's a useful answer to "What?" where depth and absolute accuracy are not important, only a sense of the shape of the thing.

[innerbrat]

I use Wikipedia. I use it for information that Doesn't Matter. It's anonymous, and not tightly controlled, so it's invalid as a reference, but it's great for things that don't require a reference.

In other words: use it when you don't have to tell people where you got the information from.

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

I use Wikipedia for the things that are unarguable -- dates of battles, ingredients in pesto, list of names of popes, etc.

Anything at all controversial, however, I look elsewhere.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

I use wikipedia as a starting point if I don't have a clue where to begin, or as a link for something off my blog when I want to supply general background.

I recently contributed and found it an odd experience. I updated the entry on Snow Crash. Suggested identities for "L. Bob Rife" were Ted Turner and L. Ron Hubbard. However, if you know anything about cable, it is clear that the cable inspiration is not Ted Turner but John Malone, former head of TCI (at the time Snow Crash was written, the largest cable operator).

What was interesting was trying to write neutral entry and support it, and also ask myself _why_ I felt even vaguely compelled to add my 2 cents when it didn't really matter. Answer, as you observe, is that when it comes to fannish matters, we are the experts and take this stuff seriously.

[zellion.livejournal.com]

I've tried to post a comment three times and each time they've been different and detailed and each time LJ has eaten it and not spit it out. Bastards.
I Love Wikipeida. I agree with Tom - mundane stuff. Good to look up TV and movies, plants and animals, same thing I'd use a normal encyclopedia for, but at the same time you can reference internet and non-internet pop culture! How else would I have learned to define the word "chav". How else would I describe the whole "O RLY?" thing to my in-laws.

[kimpire.livejournal.com]

I use it at work when copy-editing to double-check spellings of relatively famous people's names and make sure that Concentration Camp X is actually located in German Province Y.

Also, to find out what the actual full name of the "Daisy" party is in Italy.

As for posting, I've made a bunch of edits to stuff I stumble upon or care about... but most importantly, I created the article on canon-puncturing :)

[figmo.livejournal.com]

I use Wikipedia regularly. I trust it more than I trust Kim Kommando.

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

Like some of the others, I tend to use it to check stuff that isn't vitally important and/or that I know but can't remember in detail (so if it jogs & matches my memory then good and if not it's time to check another source & see which that matches).

[veritate.livejournal.com]

WE are the experts music makers. And we take this seriously are the dreamers of dreams.

- Willy Wonka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Wonka#Quotes)

My husband contributes regularly to the Wikipedia, and he has often remarked about how immediately and accurately articles on Fannish topics are created/edited.

Not only do we take it seriously, we tend to be quite passionate about it, and some of us (to the chagrin of others) like to go a little too far in proving how much more we know and how much faster we can prove it. :-)

It's all in fun, though.

[veritate.livejournal.com]

I wanted to add: The rule shouldn't be "Never use Wikipedia," but "Always look for corroborating data when using an online source." Any academic knows that, and Ms. Kommando should know better than to discount a source as vast as the Wikipedia.