QUOTE(salamangkero @ Nov 8 2006, 12:39 AM)

however, it also means that this new project, Citizendium, will also be one of those you shouldn't always believe. As it is, I see it as merely another Wikipedia, only with much more stringent measures to control the accuracy of the data it presents. Still, however, humans are behind that and as the guy said, humans make mistakes.
But the information within Citizendium will no doubt be more accurate...
QUOTE(salamangkero @ Nov 8 2006, 12:39 AM)

I think Wikipedia works in the sense that the more humans that have access to its data, the more accurate that will be, depending on which version of it has the general consensus of majority of the net surfers.
So if many people believe something that is actually incorrect, will the incorrect information be written in Wikipedia for a long time?
QUOTE(salamangkero @ Nov 8 2006, 12:39 AM)

The fact that anyone can modify it means that anyone can correct it. True, it also means that anyone can destroy it but it also implies that any damage done will be repaired and the original content restored much faster.
A number of news report tell us that Wikipedia could not clear up their errors as quickly as you (and I) hoped. Read one of them at
CBC.ca. If that's not enough, Google yourself.
QUOTE(salamangkero @ Nov 8 2006, 12:39 AM)

I don't think Wikipedia will be going anytime soon. For one, since it is made by the people and for the people, it can also be understood by the people. It is mostly through Wikipedia that I have come to appreciate other cosmological theories and other nice stuff like String theory (Yeah, I know it's geeky, I need a life, so and so) Were I reading the "real" stuff, that is, science journals, I would only end up discombobulated, understanding almost nothing at all.
Good point. I just want to note that the Citizendium project will start with all articles from Wikipedia, as said in
their website. They call it Progressive Fork.
QUOTE(salamangkero @ Nov 8 2006, 12:39 AM)

About quoting wikipedia as sources in theses, I have nothing against that, although I must add that both students and professors should take any information coming from wikipedia with a grain of salt. Unless it's simply just a formality like defining something both the professor and the students already know about anyway, I doubt it is a brilliant idea to be using the Wikipedia as a source.
I will never cite from Wikipedia when writing thesis, unless the professor says "Citing from wikis can increase your mark"
QUOTE(salamangkero @ Nov 8 2006, 12:39 AM)

About the virus being spread, what about it? I can hardly imagine (pardon my ignorance here, really) Maybe you could offer a more detailed example how it might be done, or at least, prevented?
Read the news article at
Techtree.com for details on how it might be done. Wikipedia can do nothing to prevent such things from happening again. That's why there's Citizendium.
QUOTE(Yacoby @ Nov 8 2006, 01:18 AM)

You should also never download anything randomly, I mean, why would you trust Wikipedia if anything on there could have been edited by anyone, so they people who download the virus were far to trusting in my opinion.
And someone trusted Wikipedia so much that they downloaded the virus...
QUOTE(Yacoby @ Nov 8 2006, 01:18 AM)

I doubt Wikipedia will be going anywhere soon, it has nearly 1.5 million articles, you cannot just forget about that, as Google is still indexing it etc.
But Citizendium with start with all articles from Wikipedia. What will happen to Wikipedia after Google starts indexing it?
Actually I do like Wikipedia but when your masterpieces got vandalized by some other stupid people you'll feel really frustrated. And though the articles there are not always accurate, many people still thinks it's content is reliable.
Also read: An article in
The Chronicle
Reply