Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Duality of Wikipedia

IVOR TOSSELL

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 1:36 PM EST 17/06/07

An indispensable resource on things that don't matter ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. M S from Toronto, Canada writes: What I find most amusing about Wikipedia (besides the current compulsion to insert "citation needed" after every other word) is that, apparently, no article is complete until it contains an obsessive list of trivial "popular culture" references to the subject. It seems that the more arcane or academic the subject of the article, the lengthier and more diverse the list of references from The Simpsons, some obscure webcomic, or even a computer game.
  2. Howard Citrin from Canada writes: If you want to see the silliness of Wikipedia taking itself too seriously, take a look at the pages that Stephen Colbert asked his audience to change. Then read the notes surrounding how Wikipedia members argue over if this should be stopped and how. (examples are entries on Elephants and Librarians)
  3. John Wood from Calgary, Canada writes: There is also an aweful lot of plagiarism in Wikipedia and elsewhere on the net. This is another reason not to cite it. Use it: yes, cite it: no.
  4. Clark Kent from Canada writes: Interesting arguments flare up on Wikipedia concerning naming. They'll take an international body's naming for something, sometimes Britishisms, Americanisms, when there is a more popular or logical choice (concerning English usage). The English version isn't necessarily geared at native English speakers, so you get interesting input from other cultures who disagree.

    Examples: Corn-Maize (argument being that other languages use similar words to "maize" , despite corn being the more popular word, often even in England), Common Loon-Great Northern Diver (Common Loon isn't the name of the article, despite the bird being mostly North American).
  5. Phil G from Ottawa, Canada writes: Encyclopedia Dramatica (www.encyclopediadramatica.com) is a site dedicated to spoofing online culture and, particularly, Wikipedia. It certainly is as truthful, if not more, than Wikipedia -- and is particularly cruel towards so-called expert- or celebrity-bloggers who take themselves a little too seriously.
  6. B G from New York, Canada writes: Clark Kent - I guess its fair to say that "interesting" is in the eye of the beholder, eh?
  7. Alex G from Canada writes: What about the timing of the content? I'm sure that if you could write a wiki article about "knights" earlier in the millenium, the topic would be covered in much more detail. Hence, the topics will not be balanced and in my opinion a large part of the imbalance is due to the timing of technology.

    I argue that pop culture adds value & detail over time. To simplify my point, assume a topic follows a curve of "knowledge of topic" over time. That is, the world knowledge on the topic changes over time. I think that wikipedia (along with pop culture) captures the peaks and stores that information to be preserved. Perhaps the content posted on niche star trek topics will become useful in 200 years from now? Maybe experts on topics such as "knights" will be obliged to complement the missing material on wiki?

    just some thoughts...
  8. Clark Kent from Canada writes: B G, it's as interesting as reading the flailing arguments that happen here.
  9. Michael Leblanc from Toronto, Canada writes: The (few) major topics that I am what may possibly be called an authority on are way off the mark on Wikipedia. This shakes my confidence in articles on things I know little about.

    I think many social/political topics in particular are written by spin doctors with vested interests, as are most of the articles for that matter.

    To me, Wikipedia highlights a main problem I see with the Internet - the Internet is to my mind simply a more complicated copper wire, if you take my meaning. People are mistakenly starting to view the conduit as the information, when it is merely a purveyor of it.

    It is the scholars, reporters and researchers on the ground in the real world who do the research, observe the scenes and are trained to digest and convey them who provide the raw data. The rest of it is recycled tripe, most of it soapboxian.
  10. B G from New York, Canada writes: Clark - you are 100% right about that.
  11. Albin Forone from Toronto, Canada writes: In fact, there are thousands of responsibly produced and monitored Wikipedia articles on "non-topical" topics. Anything of immediate tendentious and especially political influence is very suspect. Time will purge the nonsense. Thank goodness for Wikipedia, the concept.
  12. Walt O'Brien from Binghamton, New York, United States writes: For all the knowledge and insight you'll never need, go to Uncyclopedia, at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
  13. leo bloom from radisson, sask, canada, Canada writes: What would happen to the G&M threads without Wikipedia, eh? Just take a tour through a religious or an historical issue some day and see all the 'experts' who are essentially tossing a limp salad of Wiki lettuce and their own hateful dressing. Sour when you start; sour when you finish....
  14. Teacher David from Middle Kingdom, China writes: Hummmm... guess the difference between the G&M and Wiki is that G&M has more advertising?

    Actually, here in China Wiki is blocked. I have to access it through a proxy which one of my friends in Freeland keeps open for me. Don't let anyone ever tell you that Wiki is bad. As long as the CPC (not the Conservative Party of Canada either) wants to lie to the Chinese people, Wiki and others like it will be blocked in China. Long live Wiki!!! At least in free countries is hopefully helps develop critical thought. Here? What is critical thought?
  15. jiri Z from Canada writes: Wiki is a quite satisfying experience and millions enjoy it every day.

    I feel the detractors are motivated by greed (working or share-owning in other encyclopaedias) or just interested in sh*t disturbance like Michael Leblanc, the EXPERT. Yeah!
  16. Clark Kent from Canada writes: Taking information out of encyclopedias is merely a starting point if you are truly researching something. A gist that could be highly slanted or outdated. If it's some topic I'm mildly interested in, sure, I'll read it and take it at face value. But if integrity is important, track down sources and delve deeper.

    Brittanica (even the online version) has been shown to be less accurate than Wikipedia in a number of cases. And if Wikipedia doesn't float your boat, try Citizendium.org .
  17. James Collier from Burlington, Canada writes: The answer to the problem of Wikipedia not containing enough "serious" information is simple - add some serious information yourself.
    If you're not part of the solution, then stop crying.
  18. M K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Cheers to James Collier! Be bold, and go add to projects yourself. If you want to add more to the "knights" section, then go research knights.
  19. D. B. Cooper from Vancouver, Canada writes: The PRC does block Wikipedia (though you can get around the blockage with a circumventor site), but doesn't block Answers.com which has the same information as well as commercial encyclopedia entries and many other reference books. The difference between Wikipedia and Answers.com is that you can't edit the latter. The PRC government apparently doesn't care whether its people read the stuff, as long as they can't write it.
  20. A M from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada writes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

    The English philosopher the other John Locke is under "For other persons named John Locke, see John Locke (disambiguation)" on top of the page G&M has went to a new low.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top