PDA

View Full Version : How serious/reliable/scientific is Wikipedia?



hyper_ch
January 31st, 2008, 04:01 PM
I was amazed today to find out that the Swiss Federal Court (http://www.bger.ch/) now also quotes from Wikipedia. In the decision K 136/06 (http://jumpcgi.bger.ch/cgi-bin/JumpCGI?id=18.01.2008_K_136/06) is used following quote from the German Wikipedia:


Dabei handelt es sich um ein Fahrgeschäft, bei welchem "kleine Elektroautos, die über Stromabnehmer versorgt werden, frei über eine Fläche gesteuert werden, wobei die Fahrzeuge gegen Rempler mit einem breiten umlaufenden Gummiring gesichert sind. (...) Im Innenraum der Fahrzeuge befindet sich das mittig angebrachte Lenkrad und ein Pedal im Fussbereich des linken Sitzes. (...) Da alle Elektroautos in gleicher Höhe einen rundumlaufenden Gummipuffer besitzen, sind bei den niedrigen Geschwindigkeiten der Autos Unfälle wie Frontalzusammenstösse oder Auffahrunfälle nahezu ungefährlich" (aus: Wikipedia - Die freie Enzyklopädie, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoscooter).


While I was still at university I was always told not to quote from wikipedia... but now the Swiss Federal Court thinks it's ok to do so... I just think it's kind of amazing.

LaRoza
January 31st, 2008, 04:02 PM
Legal research is now easier than ever.

I hope they researched their source first (if they did, they should have cited that, so it doesn't look it came from wikipedia)

bufsabre666
January 31st, 2008, 04:09 PM
i was always told that i couldnt use wikipedia as a source, even though on several articles i, myself, was able to point out things that were right on wiki that were wrong in other encyclopedias

wiki is just as accurate as other sources and is updated constantly so its more uptodate

i think it has to do with the fact its open source and people can change articles, alot of people fear open source for no reason

PartisanEntity
January 31st, 2008, 04:09 PM
The idea behind Wikipedia is nice in utopia, in reality, allowing mikeymouse or jd345 to write articles about anything is crap, as we have seen from all the criticism.

Wikipedia is not transparent, users are not accountable, there is no academic peer review. I use it to get very basic info on basic issues, but I avoid it when it comes to indepth knowledge.

Wikipedia is for the modern lazy generation, those who can't or don't want to sift through books. In the end you get what you paid for, mediocre, biased and inaccurate work.

I heard there are some similar projects that aim to be really transparent, accountable and containing academic peer review.

In the end, the old fashioned way is the best. Go look for books written by people with degrees in their fields who are willing to put their name behind their work.

Wikipedia is like fastfood.

tehet
January 31st, 2008, 04:14 PM
This (bumper cars) is hardly a controversial topic, so I think it's mostly accurate. WP works for things that have little room for disagreement. Btw:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070627-german-government-agency-to-fund-accurate-wikipedia-articles.html

PartisanEntity, perhaps you mean Citizendium?

Kvark
January 31st, 2008, 04:16 PM
Don't quote from encyclopedias, they are by definition second hand information. Quote from the sources listed at the bottom of wiki articles as those are the real sources of the info you find on Wikipedia.

LaRoza
January 31st, 2008, 04:20 PM
Don't quote from encyclopedias, they are by definition second hand information. Quote from the sources listed at the bottom of wiki articles as those are the real sources of the info you find on Wikipedia.

Yes. I always used them (and wikipedia) to find information and get an overview, but I don't cite them (but real sources)

dgray_from_dc
January 31st, 2008, 04:31 PM
Wikipedia is like fastfood.

I like empty web-calories.

ayenack
January 31st, 2008, 04:47 PM
I've just read through the K 136/06 degree.

Am I right in thinking that they are describing "The Chewing System" meaning Mouth, and that this is to do with Swiss law concerning Social Care and the right to treatment or not if an individual has an accident?

If so I am astounded that they are quoting from a wiki page on an official Swiss Government law degree no matter how accurate.

LaRoza
January 31st, 2008, 04:50 PM
I refer you to this article for citing sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citing_Sources)

karellen
January 31st, 2008, 04:51 PM
The idea behind Wikipedia is nice in utopia, in reality, allowing mikeymouse or jd345 to write articles about anything is crap, as we have seen from all the criticism.

Wikipedia is not transparent, users are not accountable, there is no academic peer review. I use it to get very basic info on basic issues, but I avoid it when it comes to indepth knowledge.

Wikipedia is for the modern lazy generation, those who can't or don't want to sift through books. In the end you get what you paid for, mediocre, biased and inaccurate work.

I heard there are some similar projects that aim to be really transparent, accountable and containing academic peer review.

In the end, the old fashioned way is the best. Go look for books written by people with degrees in their fields who are willing to put their name behind their work.

Wikipedia is like fastfood.

I agree with you, I consider myself a fan of Encyclopedia Britannica and, why not, Encarta. of course nothing compares to a serious library

popch
January 31st, 2008, 05:06 PM
Am I right in thinking that they are describing "The Chewing System" meaning Mouth, and that this is to do with Swiss law concerning Social Care and the right to treatment or not if an individual has an accident?

The case was indeed about the 'chewing system'. The victim - a boy of nine - knocked loose a few teeth when smashing his mouth against the steering wheel of a scooting car in a fair or kirmes.

The question was whether the insurance company had to pay for the treatment. The victim claimed that the injury was the result of an accident, while the insurer denied the accident hypothesis on the grounds that collisions between that kind of vehicles was not only not unusual but the expected outcome of their use.

The Wikipedia article was just cited to illustrate the kind of device (vehicle) involved. It was not in any way important for the legal proceedings but served only to state what was then and there common knowledge about fairgrounds and scooters anyway.

hyper_ch
January 31st, 2008, 05:07 PM
I've just read through the K 136/06 degree.

Am I right in thinking that they are describing "The Chewing System" meaning Mouth, and that this is to do with Swiss law concerning Social Care and the right to treatment or not if an individual has an accident?


Well, an accident that needs to be paid by healthcare insurance is based upon 4 key elements as to differentiate it from an illness. One of those key elements is a sudden, unexpected (outside) force... and in that decision they argue whether the bumps produced by those fun-rides do actually count as such.

The main aim at those rides is actually to bump into one another so could it be said that it was still unexpected? There have been some older decisions that said no, those bumps are not unexpected and the swiss federal court changed now it that old view and said it is not unexpected to bump into one another on those rides but it is unexpected to bump this hard that your head gets banged on that steering wheel....

ayenack
January 31st, 2008, 05:32 PM
popch Said.

The case was indeed about the 'chewing system'. The victim - a boy of nine - knocked loose a few teeth when smashing his mouth against the steering wheel of a scooting car in a fair or kirmes.

The question was whether the insurance company had to pay for the treatment. The victim claimed that the injury was the result of an accident, while the insurer denied the accident hypothesis on the grounds that collisions between that kind of vehicles was not only not unusual but the expected outcome of their use.

The Wikipedia article was just cited to illustrate the kind of device (vehicle) involved. It was not in any way important for the legal proceedings but served only to state what was then and there common knowledge about fairgrounds and scooters anyway.

OK that makes things clearer for me now. My translation was loose to say the least. So the boy was claiming against the fairgrounds insurance and not National Health cover. I suppose this was a small claims court also which I would think would not go to the trouble of involving the manufacturer for a description of the use of their Autocart (Bumper Car as called in UK.)

hyper_ch makes you wonder if a boy of 9 should be allowed on such rides.

hyper_ch
January 31st, 2008, 05:46 PM
ayenack:
You didn't get it quite right.

In Switzerland you are obliged to get a health insurance (it's mandatory to be covered with basic health insurance however it's private companies that offers those. There are quite a few items by law which must be included in the basic health insurance). Normally it is only for illnesses but it also covers accidents - however this only subsidiary to an existing accident insurance that you have... because of his age the boy did not have an accident insurance. You normally are obliged to get an accident insurance when you start working.

So this boy of the age of 9 was not working so he tried to redeem the expenses from the health insurance and the federal court discusses whether those bumps into one another on that ride qualifies as accident. They concluded the bumps do not BUT that the kids head was banged onto steering wheel that was considered an accident and so the boy's health insurance company was sentenced to pay the treatment costs for that accident.


hyper_ch makes you wonder if a boy of 9 should be allowed on such rides.
Why not? You could be hit by a car, shot by some maniac, hit by the lightning... so many things can happen... if you worry about them all you have a miserable life... chances that you will suffer from something like that are slim... accidents happen and are tragic but in the end it's the circle of life...
and thinking that we are actually in control of anything is pure illusion.

Christmas
January 31st, 2008, 06:42 PM
In my opinion Wikipedia is good to search fast some fact or term to quickly get a picture of what is about. Then research deeper from other sources to make sure the information is accurate. It shouldn't be included in 'official' work though. Wikipedia may contain misleading or subjective information, depending on the authors' knowledge about about the fact. To give an example: I contributed to an article on Wikipedia, about Romanian literature. The article in (almost) original form still exists now. When I wrote it, I verified from another (trusty in my opinion) website and from some manual I learnt after in school. However I was no expert in the domain, so I cannot say 'The article is 100% correct'. I'm not saying it's not, it's just that the freedom for anyone to edit can lead to misinformation if not correctly documented.

Lostincyberspace
January 31st, 2008, 07:12 PM
I use wikipedia for small information or well none facts or to learn for my self how something works and then cite other sources.

As for the task at had if they saw the need to use it all the more power to them. I am not sure whether it was appropriate or not my German is to rusty but from what I understood it is alright.

hyper_ch
January 31st, 2008, 07:33 PM
It shouldn't be included in 'official' work though. Wikipedia may contain misleading or subjective information, depending on the authors' knowledge about about the fact.
This can be the case in any literature... as I am doing law you normally have 2-3 different opinions by most profs on an issue. So if you read an article or book written by one of them, you also get subjective information.

Babbage
January 31st, 2008, 07:38 PM
I like WIkipedia, and yes, years ago (B.L. - Before Linux) I liked Encarta and Britannica too. I think what some of the criticisms here miss is the context that WIkipedia is in. It's on the internet so in that context people use Wikipedia as a resource in the same way they might use other links that turn up in a web search results. I use Wikipedia in this way, and I suspect many others do as well. Yes, I read the Wikipedia entry on whatever topic I'm interested in, but I'd read a few more articles, web pages and maybe forum comments too. In that way Wikipedia information is good in context with the other sources of information available on the internet, and elsewhere. I wouldn't use it as a single, authoritative source for anything. Although having said that, I often find the entries on WIkipedia, well written, comprehensive and accurate. I'm surprised by and admire the work that so many people put into creating Wikipedia entries.

Lostincyberspace
January 31st, 2008, 07:38 PM
that and wikipedia tries to maintain neutrality of the articles as much as they can.

ticopelp
January 31st, 2008, 07:55 PM
Always check your sources. Always have more than one source, if you're serious about your subject. Doesn't matter if it's Brittanica or Wikipedia IMO.

lettas
January 31st, 2008, 08:09 PM
Wikipedia is great for what it was created for, acquiring present knowlage and culture of the mankind. It's like a parent or a grand parent that a child is asking a question from. The answer is less accurate than the one from a real encyclopedia, but way more satisfying. It's rare that wikipedia doesn't know something. It also gives more global view of the matter. Not all the writers have western university education to block their view.

ayenack
January 31st, 2008, 08:14 PM
hyper_ch;4243045
Why not? You could be hit by a car, shot by some maniac, hit by the lightning... so many things can happen... if you worry about them all you have a miserable life... chances that you will suffer from something like that are slim... accidents happen and are tragic but in the end it's the circle of life...
and thinking that we are actually in control of anything is pure illusion.

I actually did laugh out loud at this, very similar to my own views. In this country (England) there really are some ridiculous health and safety rules that almost stop people from carrying out their job. One example would be that of an mountain rescue employee who climb down the side of a mountain to save a teenage girl and was reprimanded for doing so and consequently left the service, another would be two lifeguards who watched as a young lad drown they say, because health and safety forbade they put themselves in danger.

I am actually about to begin studying construction Health & Safety as well as Fire Health & Safety so I'll soon be adding to the confusion.

Lostincyberspace
January 31st, 2008, 08:18 PM
That is terrible they should have been fired for that.

ayenack
January 31st, 2008, 08:23 PM
The two lifeguards were actually praised for it. The situation (if I remember it correctly) was that it was a freezing lake and that they would have put themselves in unreasonable danger by trying to attempt a rescue. If it was me or you I'm sure we would have seen it differently.

EDIT:
Clarification. I now remember that they were not Lifeguards but Paramedics who had been called out to the scene of the accident.

Polygon
February 1st, 2008, 02:18 AM
with any source its goood to double check your info. I usually look on wikipedia, then double check to make sure its accurate somewhere else, cause honestly as a student, the 'encyclopedias' and 'subscription databases' our school has sucks....it usually has old /outdated information thats hard to find and not really complete.

Mateo
February 1st, 2008, 02:23 AM
It doesn't matter how scientific it is. The fact is this: at any time, anyone in the world can open almost any article on the website (except those which are locked) and replace the entire contents with the word "poop". Sure, it'll be fixed quickly, either seconds or minutes later depending on the popularity of the topic, but if you are a reader who visited that article in the time before it was fixed, you got nothing out of going there. Now, replace the word "poop" with a more common or more bad intentioned edit and you see the real problem of wikipedia. Articles can be editted with wrong information (whether intentional or not) and a person who visits the site might not even know.

And that's a problem that unfixable.

erfahren
February 1st, 2008, 02:59 AM
The idea behind Wikipedia is nice in utopia, in reality, allowing mikeymouse or jd345 to write articles about anything is crap, as we have seen from all the criticism.

Wikipedia is not transparent, users are not accountable, there is no academic peer review. I use it to get very basic info on basic issues, but I avoid it when it comes to indepth knowledge.

Wikipedia is for the modern lazy generation, those who can't or don't want to sift through books. In the end you get what you paid for, mediocre, biased and inaccurate work.

I heard there are some similar projects that aim to be really transparent, accountable and containing academic peer review.

In the end, the old fashioned way is the best. Go look for books written by people with degrees in their fields who are willing to put their name behind their work.

Wikipedia is like fastfood.
actually there was a study done about that awhile back: Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (http://www.news.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html) - I'm sure there are other articles about it as well. There was also an article about an informal assessment in my local newspaper (http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5786064) where the experts looked at articles from their respective fields and judged them to be very accurate.

As for "peer review" - there is. see the four sections under here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria

-- I didn't see any sources cited to support your claim.

Polygon
February 1st, 2008, 03:03 AM
it would be nice if some peer review group would review pages of wikipedia then release it as a static encyclopedia, kinda like britticana or something. That way schools can use it and stuff.

zetetic
February 6th, 2008, 03:58 AM
I agree with you, I consider myself a fan of Encyclopedia Britannica and, why not, Encarta. of course nothing compares to a serious library

Well, Wikipedia is actually better than Britannica and Encarta...

Monona
February 6th, 2008, 04:41 AM
The study comparing Wikipedia and Britannica (http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2005/12/nature_magazine_says_wikipedia.html) makes me think that Wikipedia does well enough for accuracy. Sure, there are errors, but there are errors in other encyclopedias, too.

Another study (http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/) "suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high."

A report on Wikipedia's history articles (http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/study-on-wikipedia-accuracy-in-history.html) found errors.

To me, that suggests that Wikipedia should be taken just as seriously as any encyclopedia (which should all be taken with a grain of salt).

It's unfortunate, then, that it seems like the articles about video games and comic books are so much more well-developed than the articles about, say, worker's rights. (although don't get me wrong. i love me some comic books:))