Wednesday, March 09, 2005

For your next research project

I've known about Wikipedia for a while now. Haven't used it much -- I guess I'm not quite sure how much to trust the accuracy of the Internet's collaborative mind. But I've heard it's pretty on-target, and that very much appeals to my inner anarchist. Anybody out there have any experience with how reliable it is?

On the other hand, today is the first time I heard about Uncyclopedia, the free encyclopedia full of "misinformation and utter lies." You can just go there at any time of day or night and contribute to this great public work by making shit up about any topic you like. They just reserve the right to delete it if it isn't funny.

3 Comments:

At 3/09/2005 6:41 PM, Anonymous Miriam said...

My experience is that it's mostly accurate, though I haven't done a careful study. Much like googlebombing though, there are very narrow topics where people decide to use it to make a point. I've gotten a pile a hysterical e-mail press releases from one cult saying their leader is being defamed in the Wikipedia entry on him, and the moderators keep putting back the info they delete. Or is it that they delete the info they write? I don't remember. Or who knows? Maybe he's actually the messiah, and the Wikipedia moderators are letting their biases blind them to the light.

 
At 3/09/2005 7:34 PM, Anonymous twinkletoze said...

I've found Wikipedia mostly accurate in the minimal research I've done using it. At least, it mostly correlates with other info on the same subject.

Love the idea of uncyclopedia though - the collective creativity of humans never ceases to amaze me.

 
At 11/02/2007 2:18 PM, Blogger Saffron + Purple + SUNSETS LuvR! said...

Found your blog thru it's title (as I was quoting said chant myself in a post in my blog)...and I use the same look...apparently similar vibes....

As to wikipedia: I was a HS teacher recently, and it is viewed by educators and lay and pro scholars as an over-used and non-scholarly resource, wonderful as a primary starting point, but the information contained therein, and the variability and inconsistency and mass-ness (which is b-low lofty academic precipices) reduces author-itarian credit-ibility. Sorry, channeling Mary Daly 2day.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home