I was reading a post where the poster referenced information found on Wikipedia. I would be leary of accepting anything found on Wiki as gospel. Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. There is a tab at the top of each page for editing the page and anyone on the internet can use it. No-one appears to fact check and it is very easy to change an entry to fit whatever anyone wants it to say whether true or not.
Wikipreia info - don't necessarily trust it.
- Thread starter sceva
- Start date
- Status
I think Wiki is okay for general info or if you need something quick, but if it's important then I'd look for a second source for backup.
wikipedia is not exactly a fre-for-all infomation age love-in. it is actually fact checked quite frequently. only those sincerely interested in a subject tend to contribute, and vandals are quickly exposed. check out any discussion page associated w/ a topic and you'll see what I mean.
the fact that 'anyone can edit' it is it's greatest strength, not weakness.
the fact that 'anyone can edit' it is it's greatest strength, not weakness.
Originally Posted By: mpvue
wikipedia is not exactly a fre-for-all infomation age love-in. it is actually fact checked quite frequently. only those sincerely interested in a subject tend to contribute, and vandals are quickly exposed. check out any discussion page associated w/ a topic and you'll see what I mean.
the fact that 'anyone can edit' it is it's greatest strength, not weakness.
+1
Compared to Newspapers, TV and BITOG, Wikipedia is a shining model of accuracy.
I guess that's ****ing with faint praise, but anyone who takes any one source as the absolute truth is a fool.
wikipedia is not exactly a fre-for-all infomation age love-in. it is actually fact checked quite frequently. only those sincerely interested in a subject tend to contribute, and vandals are quickly exposed. check out any discussion page associated w/ a topic and you'll see what I mean.
the fact that 'anyone can edit' it is it's greatest strength, not weakness.
+1
Compared to Newspapers, TV and BITOG, Wikipedia is a shining model of accuracy.
I guess that's ****ing with faint praise, but anyone who takes any one source as the absolute truth is a fool.
Wiki is much better than it used to be.....and I agree, better than most MSM. However, consensus does not equal truth. Reader beware.
Why was that thread locked?
This one: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/group-iii-or-iv.86109/
Why was that thread locked?
This one: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/group-iii-or-iv.86109/
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, I see nothing on that wiki page about corrosive side effects of PAO. Maybe they've modified it since?
Stress cracking in Delrin. But only certain pure PAO's in certain applications - not inside IC engines.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Wiki is much better than it used to be.....and I agree, better than most MSM. However, consensus does not equal truth. Reader beware.
Why was that thread locked?
This one: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/group-iii-or-iv.86109/
Infact was me that posted that link I don't understand why
Wiki is much better than it used to be.....and I agree, better than most MSM. However, consensus does not equal truth. Reader beware.
Why was that thread locked?
This one: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/group-iii-or-iv.86109/
Infact was me that posted that link I don't understand why
Last edited by a moderator:
In addition to my engineering business, I have taught at the college level. Any student citing Wiki as a source gets an automatic "F" grade. Wiki is not anything other than a free-for-all where the ax is ground to a fine edge.
Originally Posted By: MatchboxCar
In addition to my engineering business, I have taught at the college level. Any student citing Wiki as a source gets an automatic "F" grade. Wiki is not anything other than a free-for-all where the ax is ground to a fine edge.
Wow, MatchboxCar, for an engineer, and an educator, you certainly are a black and white thinker. Your statement regarding Wikipedia is so general as to be totally useless and uninformative. I suspect that you have your own axe to grind regarding something that you read there. But, I could be wrong.
As an engineer, a consultant, and an occasional educator myself, I would find a great teaching opportunity in someone using Wikipedia as a reference. In some cases information there is poorly sourced. In other cases it is quite well sourced. I think what would be valuable would be to teach about using multiple sources for reference. Wikipedia often makes a good starting point from which one can jump off to other sources.
In addition to my engineering business, I have taught at the college level. Any student citing Wiki as a source gets an automatic "F" grade. Wiki is not anything other than a free-for-all where the ax is ground to a fine edge.
Wow, MatchboxCar, for an engineer, and an educator, you certainly are a black and white thinker. Your statement regarding Wikipedia is so general as to be totally useless and uninformative. I suspect that you have your own axe to grind regarding something that you read there. But, I could be wrong.
As an engineer, a consultant, and an occasional educator myself, I would find a great teaching opportunity in someone using Wikipedia as a reference. In some cases information there is poorly sourced. In other cases it is quite well sourced. I think what would be valuable would be to teach about using multiple sources for reference. Wikipedia often makes a good starting point from which one can jump off to other sources.
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Wow, MatchboxCar, for an engineer, and an educator, you certainly are a black and white thinker. Your statement regarding Wikipedia is so general as to be totally useless and uninformative. I suspect that you have your own axe to grind regarding something that you read there. But, I could be wrong.
Even if the wikipedia page is impeccable, he'd do the same thing if someone tried to use the encyclopedia as their source for a report. The intent is to get the student to get as close to the primary sources as possible. Trying to pass off encyclopedia entries and summaries as research is going to earn the ire of any professor or educator.
Wow, MatchboxCar, for an engineer, and an educator, you certainly are a black and white thinker. Your statement regarding Wikipedia is so general as to be totally useless and uninformative. I suspect that you have your own axe to grind regarding something that you read there. But, I could be wrong.
Even if the wikipedia page is impeccable, he'd do the same thing if someone tried to use the encyclopedia as their source for a report. The intent is to get the student to get as close to the primary sources as possible. Trying to pass off encyclopedia entries and summaries as research is going to earn the ire of any professor or educator.
Its a great source. The references make all of the difference.
[/quote]Even if the wikipedia page is impeccable, he'd do the same thing if someone tried to use the encyclopedia as their source for a report. The intent is to get the student to get as close to the primary sources as possible. Trying to pass off encyclopedia entries and summaries as research is going to earn the ire of any professor or educator. [/quote]
+1
One must use primary sources to write college or graduate level reports. We teach critical thinking in schools and part of that is evaluation of sources. Getting as far back to the primary source and even evaluating the actual research is important in proving one's point or supporting one's topic. It happens here on BITOG all the time when we ask for sources, show the UOA, etc.
+1
One must use primary sources to write college or graduate level reports. We teach critical thinking in schools and part of that is evaluation of sources. Getting as far back to the primary source and even evaluating the actual research is important in proving one's point or supporting one's topic. It happens here on BITOG all the time when we ask for sources, show the UOA, etc.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Wow, MatchboxCar, for an engineer, and an educator, you certainly are a black and white thinker. Your statement regarding Wikipedia is so general as to be totally useless and uninformative. I suspect that you have your own axe to grind regarding something that you read there. But, I could be wrong.
As an engineer, a consultant, and an occasional educator myself, I would find a great teaching opportunity in someone using Wikipedia as a reference. In some cases information there is poorly sourced. In other cases it is quite well sourced. I think what would be valuable would be to teach about using multiple sources for reference. Wikipedia often makes a good starting point from which one can jump off to other sources.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, Wiki is not better, and sometimes worse, than Encyclopedia Brittanica. The subject of Matchbox cars has been manipulated on Wiki so as to prevent an accurate history and state of the hobby and brand today. You'd be surprised how "political" the Editing is. Every Wiki article has fault. Community consensus does not the truth make.
Wow, MatchboxCar, for an engineer, and an educator, you certainly are a black and white thinker. Your statement regarding Wikipedia is so general as to be totally useless and uninformative. I suspect that you have your own axe to grind regarding something that you read there. But, I could be wrong.
As an engineer, a consultant, and an occasional educator myself, I would find a great teaching opportunity in someone using Wikipedia as a reference. In some cases information there is poorly sourced. In other cases it is quite well sourced. I think what would be valuable would be to teach about using multiple sources for reference. Wikipedia often makes a good starting point from which one can jump off to other sources.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, Wiki is not better, and sometimes worse, than Encyclopedia Brittanica. The subject of Matchbox cars has been manipulated on Wiki so as to prevent an accurate history and state of the hobby and brand today. You'd be surprised how "political" the Editing is. Every Wiki article has fault. Community consensus does not the truth make.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Wiki is much better than it used to be.....and I agree, better than most MSM. However, consensus does not equal truth. Reader beware.
Why was that thread locked?
This one: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/group-iii-or-iv.86109/
Because the basic premise of the thread was which is better, group III or IV.
The basic discussion of Group IV being corrosive on plastics is a great discussion, but many dont read the title. Then we get stuck with another [censored] match between people who live for the group III vs. IV debate. Not necessary given that it has been covered so many times before.
JMH
Wiki is much better than it used to be.....and I agree, better than most MSM. However, consensus does not equal truth. Reader beware.
Why was that thread locked?
This one: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/group-iii-or-iv.86109/
Because the basic premise of the thread was which is better, group III or IV.
The basic discussion of Group IV being corrosive on plastics is a great discussion, but many dont read the title. Then we get stuck with another [censored] match between people who live for the group III vs. IV debate. Not necessary given that it has been covered so many times before.
JMH
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Wiki is much better than it used to be.....and I agree, better than most MSM. However, consensus does not equal truth. Reader beware.
Why was that thread locked?
This one: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/group-iii-or-iv.86109/
Because the basic premise of the thread was which is better, group III or IV.
The basic discussion of Group IV being corrosive on plastics is a great discussion, but many dont read the title. Then we get stuck with another [censored] match between people who live for the group III vs. IV debate. Not necessary given that it has been covered so many times before.
JMH
LOL. I just have a mental picture of you picking up the flag, facing the crowd, turning on your mike, and giving your ruling. When you finish, you hold up 3 fingers and say "still 3rd down".
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Wiki is much better than it used to be.....and I agree, better than most MSM. However, consensus does not equal truth. Reader beware.
Why was that thread locked?
This one: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/group-iii-or-iv.86109/
Because the basic premise of the thread was which is better, group III or IV.
The basic discussion of Group IV being corrosive on plastics is a great discussion, but many dont read the title. Then we get stuck with another [censored] match between people who live for the group III vs. IV debate. Not necessary given that it has been covered so many times before.
JMH
LOL. I just have a mental picture of you picking up the flag, facing the crowd, turning on your mike, and giving your ruling. When you finish, you hold up 3 fingers and say "still 3rd down".
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't blindly trust any ones article on the internet.
I like Wikipedia for finding information that likely isn't subject to any agendas, like looking up the average size of a particular species or something like that. But you certainly have to be careful with what you choose to believe.
Who's Editing Wikipedia
Who's Editing Wikipedia
Originally Posted By: MatchboxCar
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Wow, MatchboxCar, for an engineer, and an educator, you certainly are a black and white thinker. Your statement regarding Wikipedia is so general as to be totally useless and uninformative. I suspect that you have your own axe to grind regarding something that you read there. But, I could be wrong.
As an engineer, a consultant, and an occasional educator myself, I would find a great teaching opportunity in someone using Wikipedia as a reference. In some cases information there is poorly sourced. In other cases it is quite well sourced. I think what would be valuable would be to teach about using multiple sources for reference. Wikipedia often makes a good starting point from which one can jump off to other sources.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, Wiki is not better, and sometimes worse, than Encyclopedia Brittanica. The subject of Matchbox cars has been manipulated on Wiki so as to prevent an accurate history and state of the hobby and brand today. You'd be surprised how "political" the Editing is. Every Wiki article has fault. Community consensus does not the truth make.
And you're saying these "politics" make their way into math, physics, or chemistry entries?
Have you guys ever tried to edit wikipedia? Look at the page the next day....
I think you need to be a a "wikipedia member" to permenantly edit pages without review.
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Wow, MatchboxCar, for an engineer, and an educator, you certainly are a black and white thinker. Your statement regarding Wikipedia is so general as to be totally useless and uninformative. I suspect that you have your own axe to grind regarding something that you read there. But, I could be wrong.
As an engineer, a consultant, and an occasional educator myself, I would find a great teaching opportunity in someone using Wikipedia as a reference. In some cases information there is poorly sourced. In other cases it is quite well sourced. I think what would be valuable would be to teach about using multiple sources for reference. Wikipedia often makes a good starting point from which one can jump off to other sources.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, Wiki is not better, and sometimes worse, than Encyclopedia Brittanica. The subject of Matchbox cars has been manipulated on Wiki so as to prevent an accurate history and state of the hobby and brand today. You'd be surprised how "political" the Editing is. Every Wiki article has fault. Community consensus does not the truth make.
And you're saying these "politics" make their way into math, physics, or chemistry entries?
Have you guys ever tried to edit wikipedia? Look at the page the next day....
I think you need to be a a "wikipedia member" to permenantly edit pages without review.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
