RANDOM RANTS XXV: Put a Smile On

[aimeeandbeatles]

Stupid inaccurate magazine articles. (smashes head against wall repeatedly).

 

[Tee Kay]

Don't do that.

You should always get info from several different sources and check them against each other.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Don't do that.

You should always get info from several different sources and check them against each other.

Well the problem is that every other source says otherwise, including at least 3-4 first-hand sources, a dozen pictures, and a few videos.

Then again this article also mixes up two important people (that was freaking hilarious) so I cant take too much into what it says.

 

[W|M]

Don't do that.

You should always get info from several different sources and check them against each other.

My school doesn't seem to do that, due to the massive inaccuracies in my geography textbook (it's 2 years old).

 

[Arakhor]

School textbooks being two years old is an understandable issue. I remember doing primary school maths in the mid 80s and being asked to work in halfpennies!

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

In grade 8 we had 20-year-old textbooks. The next year they bought all-new ones.

This article Im typing though, the inaccuracies are actually a bit painful.

Whats worse is that one time I looked up the subject in a big fancy encyclopedia, I think it was the Britannica one, and it also had some inaccuracies. And Wikipedia didnt. Thats painful because Wikipedia is generally not allowed as a source on school papers because "it might be inaccurate."

Didnt some people do a study where they put fake info into the Wikipedia articles and most of them were removed within the hour?

 

[W|M]

My textbook produces information that was inaccurate two years ago. I hate the Wikipedia myth.

EDIT: I have a (relatively) new history textbook, and another one from 1985.

 

[Arakhor]

We had a 20-volume encyclopaedia at home, but unfortunately it was published between 1968 and 1972, making my teenage knowledge of politics and science pitiful. I didn't even know about Pluto's moon Charon until my 20s!

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

What is the Wikipedia myth? I googled that and got all sorts of non-relevant things.

Whats even more painful is when half the sources say one thing and the other half say another. Its just trying to sort out all the garbage.

 

[Arakhor]

That Wikipedia isn't very accurate because it's user-edited. It isn't very accurate, true, but even professional encyclopaedias aren't that much more accurate.

 

[W|M]

We had a 20-volume encyclopaedia at home, but unfortunately it was published between 1968 and 1972...

I have a few volumes from the 'Children's Encyclopedia' (who's name is extremely inaccurate) from about 1970 also.

The Wikipedia myth is that Wikipedia is completely unreliable.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Arent professional encyclopedias written mostly by a few people. If so they probably aren't very much interested in all of the different subjects and I guess they do minimal research on it. And somebody who edits a Wikipedia article is probably somebody who likes the subject and did research on it.

 

[Arakhor]

They actually get paid to do the research though, Aimee.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

They actually get paid to do the research though, Aimee.

Lousy research, it must be. I mean, for the mistake I noticed, it would be easily available from public records Id think.

 

[Ajidica]

Still, avoid wikipedia as a source for almost anything controversial, such as Israel-Palestine or abortion. Use it to get background info, but don't use it as a source.

For undisputed facts it is a god. (Who was king of Bohemia during 30 Years war? Frederick V, Elector of the Palatinate.)

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Well the problem is that every other source says otherwise, including at least 3-4 first-hand sources, a dozen pictures, and a few videos.

Then again this article also mixes up two important people (that was freaking hilarious) so I cant take too much into what it says.

Ouch, it also misspelled some names.

And seriously the first half of the article seems almost directly lifted from this other article I have that does have the correct facts. This writers an idiot. At the beginning of the article it says its not going to try to let what the other press affect what it said, I didnt realize that meant to do shoddy research.

EDIT: Aha. The stupid writer got one thing right. "I think they're gonna be around for a long time." At the very end of the article. Im typing it up.

 

[carmen510]

Old math textbooks, that smell absolutely foul and have lost several pages.

One of my classmates told the teacher that her parents said: "Hey! I used those exact same textbooks when I was in high school."

 

[Xanikk999]

Still, avoid wikipedia as a source for almost anything controversial, such as Israel-Palestine or abortion. Use it to get background info, but don't use it as a source.

For undisputed facts it is a god. (Who was king of Bohemia during 30 Years war? Frederick V, Elector of the Palatinate.)

Exactly use it for some background info but for highly sensational topics and for any real research i recommend checking what wikipidia says BUT than backing up those claims through scholarly articles/journals/websites.. etc.

You can use wikipedia as a starting tool but never cite from them and check any claims from wikipedia that you might want to delve deeper into. If they can be backed by reputable sources just cite the reputable source.

 

[Ajidica]

I actualy wrote a paper once using sources only from wikipedia. Of course, my paper was on how internet changes out perceptions. I did get ten points off for not varying my sources enough, but I got 11 bonus points for sheer awsomeness.

 

[Xanikk999]

I actualy wrote a paper once using sources only from wikipedia. Of course, my paper was on how internet changes out perceptions. I did get ten points off for not varying my sources enough, but I got 11 bonus points for sheer awsomeness.

Really? Where do you go to school?

If i used Wikipedia i would certainly get a big fat F.