• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

The Wikipedia debate

Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
939
Reaction score
84
Points
28
Location
Akron, Ohio
Your Mac's Specs
C2D MacBook Pro
There is a fundamental debate raging about Wikipedia's standards.

http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354

Which side are you on? Do you agree with the inclusionists or the deletionists?

I, personally, believe that the inclusionists are right. There is no reason to delete even trivial entries. The more information, the better.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
I'm with the inclusionists, but believe there should be an accuracy rating system. People would be able to determine if an article passes an accuracy test or not (the criteria for this test are open for debate) to give information more credence. Articles that are now marked for deletion would be given a low score, thus prompting the authors and interested parties to bolster the sources and validity of the entry with the ultimate goal being for it to gain a higher score. Entries that stand on their own merit by the test guidelines would be given higher scores. This could meet the requirements of both parties and make Wikipedia much more useful for the general public as a whole.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
99
Points
48
Location
Chicago, IL
Your Mac's Specs
Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
I am an inclusionist. I don't need people telling me what information is worthy or not. I should be able to make that decision.
As for their credibility, everything on the Internet needs to be taken with a sprinkle of skepticism. Excluding 500 Pokemon articles will not add to their credibility.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Central Florida
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro Unibody
Inclusionist. I agree with bryphotoguy, who is the ultimate authority to say what is important and what is not.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
Another inclusionist right here.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
270
Points
83
Location
Oakton, VA USA
Your Mac's Specs
White MacBook Intel C2D 2.2GHz, 2G, 250G, SD, Leopard.
Here's another for the inclusionist side. I've been impressed with what the Wikipedia includes. It's neat to be able to look up something like the Lorentz Transformation. It's also helpful to be able to learn something about the difference between a Nintendo DS and the DS Lite. The Lorentz Transformation is something for all time (pun not intended (or is that "pun n'intendo?" -_^)) and the DS info will probably be irrelevant from a practical perspective in five years or less. So what? Who cares? Both are useful.

On the accuracy side, I'll stick with the Buddha view:

Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.

~ Buddha Quotes from The Dhammapada

If someone wants to include some accuracy information on a topic, fine. If not, that's fine too. I can imagine potential firestorms over issues that cannot be objectively verified, and even over some that can. Regardless, I think I'm able to judge what's trustworthy and what isn't. I think others can do that too. A label indicating an article is accurate tells me nothing.

The Wikipedia is simply one source of information. It is not nor should it ever be a bible of sorts.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,967
Reaction score
287
Points
83
Location
London
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini Core i7 2012 | White 2009 MacBook 2 Ghz | 733 Mhz G4 Quicksilver
Inclusionist

I must say hat the quality of Wikipedia articles is usually very high, OK a lot of niche areas get a lot of coverage (every single Jedi Knight ever mentioned anywhere) but who is to say something is of value and what is not
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
99
Points
48
Location
Chicago, IL
Your Mac's Specs
Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
Don't come here preaching your hippie propaganda Mothogre!

Actually, I really like that quote; thanks for sharing.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
I think the Wikipedia is a mixed blessing.

On the one hand it is free, accessible, and is full of information that would usually have to be gathered from various sources. Having debates with anyone online is completely pointless, as these 'wiki-perts' just wiki you to death until you give in, or just do it back.

However, there is also the point that Wikipedia never offers anything other than the absolute consensus on any topic. There is no real perspective IMO - so the debate about whether or not trivial topic should be included is not the point, the debate should be whether or not topics should be endlessly edited until everyone is agreed on what is said.
 

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
Inclusionist but do agree the info should be accurate so I can rely on it.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
270
Points
83
Location
Oakton, VA USA
Your Mac's Specs
White MacBook Intel C2D 2.2GHz, 2G, 250G, SD, Leopard.
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
892
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Honestly, I could care less. If its not on wiki, its somewhere else. Truthful or not. And all only a google search away
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Location
Sydney, Australia
Your Mac's Specs
13" MBP, 2.26GHz, 8gb RAM
Inconclusionist for sure. You can't reference Wiki at college or uni or school anyway and bringing in strict standards probably wouldn't change this...

I use it to find out basic information and then use the links for further reading and referencing....
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
413
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Location
Burlington
Your Mac's Specs
See Signature
Also an inclusionist. A ratings system like in youtube would do.. Accuracy? Yes. No. After a certain predetermined number of votes based on overall viewing the article could be flagged as acurate or unaccurate. Also, number of views, when last viewed, number of revisions, last revision/submitted info might be usefull too
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
892
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Also an inclusionist. A ratings system like in youtube would do.. Accuracy? Yes. No. After a certain predetermined number of votes based on overall viewing the article could be flagged as acurate or unaccurate. Also, number of views, when last viewed, number of revisions, last revision/submitted info might be usefull too

It wouldnt solve the problem, or debate, but those are some very good points that wiki should consider. They would be really helpful too
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
413
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Location
Burlington
Your Mac's Specs
See Signature
Maybe deviding it up a lil bit would do as well.... catagorizing... so you'd know its fiction or nonfiction, etc...
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
Wiki erased an entry some one put up about Strobist. It's a blog about lighting that's almost turned into a freakishly large cult like movement. The flickr group alone has nearly 25k members. They erased it because they said the article would be advertisement for a commercial entity or some other lame excuse like that. I don't see them removing Honda or Yamaha or Microsoft from their site.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
604
Points
113
Location
PA
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook
It doesn't matter if the information is "trivial" or not. So long as the information is true, can be cited elsewhere and it comes from a reliable and proven source... I see no reason for it to be deleted.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case with Wikipedia. Many articles are simple conjecture or unsubstantiated opinion. There are very few checks and balances for the veracity of information contained in Wikipedia. Any article can be edited by anyone at random. As such, it should never be used as a cited resource or direct link for information. It can be a good place to start research, but one should follow the footnotes and cited works for more credible and reliable data.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Central Florida
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro Unibody
Well, if there is going to be a voting system, it should be done by people with some type of authority on the subjects. Anybody can jump onto a browser and vote... I could vote on particle physics all day, but I don't know jack about the topic.

While a voting system would be nice, it could only work for the quality of the presentation, not the quality of the information.

I agree with devilboy, and as such that is why Colleges and Universities (as someone else mentioned) won't allow it as a reference.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top