Wikipedia & Research

[Rambuchan]

I'm just getting into modding now. It's late I know but there we go. The more I spend time looking around C&C for useful guidance and links the more I find links to this thing called Wikipedia.

Wikipedia troubles me and also raises many questions about history. I don't want to go into a big debate about history but I do want to say that Wikipedia strikes me as a bit flawed. Great idea but flawed ultimately. If anyone can edit this 'free encyclopedia' then what is to stop people planting disinformation or incorrect information, either knowingly or like our British Prime Minister - they do it in error but in good faith?

What is there to check that content being entered into Wikipedia is accurate or as close to accurate as history can get? I read the entries in there and must confess that I read them with a pinch of salt. There are so many historical misconceptions that I've had and boldly gone around and told people in good faith then later found out I wasn't completely accurate. This is the kind of thing which Wikipedia would only enhance.

What are your opinions on this source which seems to be so heavily used by Civ Fanatics?

 

[Gomurr]

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever to keep people from putting incorrect information in the articles. In fact, I know one of my roommates edits their articles to include false information on a regular basis, as a weird little hobby of his. So I don't trust things from Wikipedia.

 

[El Justo]

personally, i use wikipedia often. sure, some of the info on that site can be altered by any joe-schmoe.

however, i highly doubt that some dude would want to fudge the date when an Adams Class American destroyer was decommissioned. iow, it can be very, very useful if you're looking for highly specialized info like dates, etc.

 

[White_Knight]

I find Wikipedia is useful for preliminary stages of research, giving me key words to search for in order to find more complete information.

For example, I'm currently making a mod with a unique wonder for each civ. Since my knowledge of certain cultures (most notably the African, Asian and Central American civs) is limited, I have used Wikipedia to give me ideas of what some possible wonder candidates would be. Then I google those to find more extensive information.

While I would not use anything in Wikipedia that I could not verify elsewhere, as a resource for narrowing down research and actually finding some of those alternate sources, I find it quite acceptable.

 

[Aion]

I share your doubts about Wikipedia, but the amazing thing is: It does work! It seems that there are more people editing with useful intentions than people being destructive.
Of course Wikipedia is not completely accurate, but it's the best encyclopaedia there is. Better than any paper encyclopaedia and much better than any other web source.
I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for my habilitation ;-), but I love just browsing around. Honestly, it's one of the greatest things internet has produced.

Actually it is another example how the internet develops in a way nobody has imagined before. In the 90es people talked a lot about web shops, they like thought in ten years' time everybody would buy his bread and milk and beer in the web. Of course nobody does, but there's eBay, a completely new concept. Similarily there were lots of internet encyclopaedias, but no one could imagine Wikipedia's free-source concept, which, honestly, has prooved to be quite revolutionary.

 

[viper275]

I think it's good and use it often, but I check whatever I use there (easy because of the external links).

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

I find Wikipedia useful as well. Though there are likely to be inaccuracies (whether unintentional or deliberate), there are at least links to sites specifically containing more detailed information. So far, a lot of the info I've been searching for has been accurately recorded in Wikipedia, when comparing the information to other sites.

 

[drzoidberg]

If anyone can edit this 'free encyclopedia' then what is to stop people planting disinformation or incorrect information, either knowingly or like our British Prime Minister - they do it in error but in good faith?

This discussion is huge. Why should you trust any journalist/authour. it's the writer with the most amusing/likeable version of history who gets printed always, no matter the degree of correctness. The accepted version of history is always down to belief which kind of makes it into a religion. The Dicovery channel lets any idiot on TV as long as they look good on camera and have a reasonable, (but not necesarily credible) theory. There was a huge demonstration in Germany yesterday against the belief that the holocaust took place. People will believe anything if it fits their view of the universe. I like Wikipedia because it can be edited by anyone. People don't just accept it out of hand just like they shouldn't with anything written on history.

 

[Corvex]

Furthermore, if you find an innaccuracy on Wikipedia, there's nothing to stop you from editing it out yourself. If everyone does this, then the problem is negated.
I also agree with drzoidberg that interpretations of history, like many things, are influenced more by presentation than content.

 

[Bjornlo]

The thing to remember is that for most of what we do in the game, close enough is good enough.
As a perfectionist, I constantly struggle with the urge to have everything absolutely perfect. But this is not possible given the constraints of the game. So no matter what you do, some compromise is going to be neccessary.

If you are looking for some core bit of info around which to build your scenario, then Wiki won't do. I find Encarta to be a great place to 2nd source most info. It is fact-checked as well as any encylopedia. But remember almost nothing on the internet is 100% reliable.

If you are looking to fill in a few missing blanks on a solid framework, wiki is 99% of the time good enough. Because you can always make later adjustments if you find errors.

 

[vbraun]

Last night I edited a Wikipedia article on Civilization. Instead of it saying Civ4 will be out in 2005. I made it say Civ4 will be out late 2005.