Wikipedia a rival at last?

[Vladd67]

I don't know about anyone else but I never fully trust Wikipedia, its a good place to start but I would never trust it to be a definitive source of information. Does anyone else think this new site sounds like a step in the right direction?
Web rivals plot the answer to Wikipedia - Times Online
Main Page - Citizendium

[Overread]

Sound like a very good step in the right direction - though to provide a free service like wiki this project will porbably be heavily reliant on donations of money and the good will of professionals to share their understandings and knowledge for free. Though simply by making people regester their names and having official editiors should be able to filter out most of the junk.

[iansales]

I disagree. An encyclopedia with an agenda? That's a recipe for disaster. Wikipedia has its faults (not the least of which are a few over-zealous idiot editors), but it definitely seems like the greater the mass of contributions the more they tend to accuracy. Now can Citizendium hope to challenge Wikipedia in scope or breadth, since it won't have the same vast number of contributors.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by iansales

has its faults (not the least of which are a few over-zealous idiot editors), but it definitely seems like the greater the mass of contributions the more they tend to accuracy.

Umm - I'd have to disagree a bit there, Ian - seems to me what you get is consensus, not necessarily accuracy.

[iansales]

Consensus is accuracy - at least in subjects like history :-) And in the hard sciences, it's difficult for numbers and equations to be inaccurate with so many knowledgeable people keeping the topic on track.

[Hypes]

I agree, most Wiki articles have gone through a long editing process and end up being equal or even superior to textbook encyclopedias. While those Wiki articles that have caused quite a ruckus have been edited with a specific agenda in mind, the power of the userbase has made it right again. Sure, you get a lot of crap on there, but it's extremely short lived when you consider the vastness of the site and the number of articles available.

Things have sometimes gone awry, but as usual, we only hear about the bad cases which are in a clear minority.

[Parson]

Consensus is not accuracy, it is only the majority opinion and the majority of people are often wrong, sometimes incredibly wrong. Pooled ignorance continues to be ignorance.

I trust Wiki as much as I trusted Bill Clinton --- NOT AT ALL!! --- And sorry to have been proven right in that. If the Wiki articles were signed and we had a short bio of each editor and what they had added or subtracted with sources sited for their work, I would change my mind.

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Parson

Consensus is not accuracy, it is only the majority opinion and the majority of people are often wrong, sometimes incredibly wrong. Pooled ignorance continues to be ignorance.

Unfortunately, the consensus here seems to suggest you're wrong. Which sort of disproves your point... Unless you're implying we're all ignorant.

[Overread]

Well to end the argument of consensus one quote and a refrence which I think sums it up;
Quote from yes minister series 2-
J. Hacker "why do you experts always thing your right?"
Sir Boby "and why do you think that the more inexpert you are the more likley you are to be right?"

refrence - watch QI the tv show and see what general knowledge people think is right is actually wrong

[woodsman]

Yeah I don't trust Wiki but it's great for getting Names or terms on a subject which you can then look up with further search on google and in Journals. In this regard it's actually incredibaly usefull. I'd be interested in this site and it should be usefull although will obviously lack the sheer size of Wiki.

[Overread]

initially true woodsman - however consider the move by many web based groups to release more information to people for free- such as googles aim to put the content of the top libraies online for free. Such a project like this I can see being used and supported by universities - allowing students access to a large and more reliable source of information and (more importantly) more credable information with official sources as well

[woodsman]

If that were the case it would be usefull indeed. and as it became more well known, it would grow etc. I see, well it's appears to be a pretty good plan IMHO. I don't think Wiki will die though.

[Curt Chiarelli]

How can one trust and respect a reference source whose entire premise is founded upon super-egalitarianism with absolutely no peer review, zero overhead costs to maintain quality standards or even any personal responsibility taken for its content by its founder, pornographer Jimmy Wales.

In addition, I and many others have been libeled on Wikipedia - even by the jack asses who are supposed to police the site for factual errata and policy violations. Instead, thanks to Jimbo's corrupt, faulty concept, the cowardice, passive-aggressive hostilities, arrested development and general mean-spirited pranksterism of it's contributors, Wikipedia is the apotheosis of the internet at its most idiotic and irresponsible.

[Connavar]

I think wikipedia is actually one of few useful things you find in the web.


Most of the time you check wiki for something its something you can prolly geuss or find but not as fast. For thats its bloody genius.

You dont use it to look up scientific data mostly its mainstream info.

When you looking up info for school work and other important stuff you dont use wiki.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by iansales

Unfortunately, the consensus here seems to suggest you're wrong. Which sort of disproves your point... Unless you're implying we're all ignorant.

I'm too polite to comment.