What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
84 Comments
- Lith25, on 09/03/2008, -4/+67Wikipedia is a great place to start gathering your information. Most pages will have sources listed at the bottom from which you can legitly cite from.
- tylermenezes, on 09/03/2008, -4/+34Wikipedia is great for initial research, and I think at least 90% of what's there is accurate. You really need to find other articles supporting the same information before you can call it factual, though. What I really hate is when teachers at my school adapt the stupid policy of saying "no Wikipedia", then allowing the use of any other .org websites. ANYONE can put up a .org website for about $7 a year, so it's no more reliable.
- Roryking, on 09/03/2008, -12/+37Wikipedia is awesome and one of the great bastions of the information age. It has its pitfalls; most encyclopedias do. What Wikipedia can do now to help its acceptance in to mainstream institutions is continue and seek out new reliable sources of information.
- yyymilitia, on 09/03/2008, -9/+30Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia, But administrating justice using flaky information is completely wrong.
- footballer7604, on 09/03/2008, -2/+14What I never understood was I can write a paper on a topic I know nothing about, fill it full of rambles to fill some stupid 5 page minimum and use a few resources to prove my point that can be completely wrong and get a decent grade. Then two years later someone could use that paper I wrote as a resource and it would be perfectly fine. But people cant use some information stated (possibility by an expert on the topic) and backed with citations from wiki. Yes making judical decisions based on any type of flaky information is wrong but where do you draw the line on flaky? Insane college professor writing a book or an un certified expert in the field sharing information?
- wunksta, on 09/03/2008, -1/+12use the ***** sources ON wikipedia, idiots
- davidlow, on 09/03/2008, -2/+13Citing Wikipedia as a source of information is like citing the publisher of a book instead of the author.
- smotpoker, on 09/03/2008, -2/+11"temporarily able" maybe, not "allowed".
Anything you think is dishonest or questionable, you can edit the site yourself or debate it on the discussion boards. If you cannot resolve or change what you think is bad, you can add a "criticism" or "controversy" section to the page (as long as your argument isn't disprovable) - KenSPT, on 09/03/2008, -4/+13*citation needed
- dsmx, on 09/03/2008, -0/+8As long as you use wikipedia as a starting point for your research then it's fine, but never use it as a reference in anything you do.
- Midtowner, on 09/03/2008, -1/+9I have a few points here...
As a law student, I use Wikipedia almost daily. Its 'canned briefs' (quick and dirty rundowns of cases) are excellent. I've even seen folks in class reading straight off of Wikipedia when being hammered by a professor and looking like pros (I'm not quite that brazen).
For research purposes, I think it's a terrific jumping off point. For Chrissakes though, check the cites.
For use in the court system itself, it's patent hearsay. It's inadmissible and no judge should or can rely on any website's information unless it can be properly authenticated via the rules of evidence (not bloody likely). There is the 'learned treatise' exception to the hearsay rule, but I can safely say that Wikipedia comes nowhere close to satisfying that test. Sometimes, unfortunately, we need real witnesses or real evidence to tell our stories in court. - MariusAgricola, on 09/03/2008, -0/+8That's how I start writing research papers for my graduate classes. I don't think anyone should rely on one source for all of their materials, be it Wikipedia or another reference book, but I don't think Wikipedia should be specifically excluded either. For the vast majority of information you might be seeking, Wikipedia will be a sufficient resource as a starting point, and the information will be reliable enough on average. Just don't expect more reliability on controversial or current event type topics.
I think what I am trying to say is, "Exercise some common sense." - o0joshua0o, on 09/03/2008, -0/+7I love it when you meet one of those "If it's on the Internet, it must be wrong" people.
- Midtowner, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6You'd be very surprised, actually.
I'm a law student and I use wikipedia frequently. There are excellent 'canned briefs' (summaries of cases) available on wikipedia. They are mostly accurate. While it's not something I'd use to write a paper or a brief, unless it was just a jumping off point so I could make sure I had my concepts straight, I think it's a valuable tool.
The key is, as with anything on the internet, be aware that its value only as much as the anonymous author gave it. Be able to fact-check on your own and be able to tell what is bogus and what is not. Do that and it's a great tool. - inactive, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5Not that wikipedia's nature has anything to do with it in this case. Surely referencing Encarta or Britannica on a point of law is no different.
- danielsamuels, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5Nothing new there.
- MonkeyOverlord, on 09/03/2008, -1/+6It's not even a matter of bias. Law is an extremely complicated subject because of how much you need to know about caselaw, statutes, constitutional law, common law, etc. in some cases. It's unlikely that Wikipedia has a lot of lawyers writing up good material on these subjects that is usable in the courts.
- Nothlit, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5What your teachers ought to be saying is that you should never cite ANY encyclopedia, whether it is Wikipedia or Encarta or Britannica, as a primary source for research. Use them as jumping off points, like you said, and cite the original sources once you have confirmed them.
- wunksta, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5not really, it provides sources. if it doesnt then you shouldnt claim it (or you should find a source for it)
- dvnt1, on 09/03/2008, -1/+6What an incredible insight into the complete failure of conceptual understanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia the best resource for finding information, but it's up to the user to determine if the information is credible. If you cite Wikipedia on a references page or bibliography then you're a failure. Don't cite Wikipedia, cite where the information from Wikipedia comes from.
This idiotic aversion to Wikipedia is nothing more than a declaration that you don't get it... - EarlOfLade, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4Actually, the US injustice system might actually benefit from using Wikipedia., I mean, it's so bad already, it can't possibly become any worse.
- MrFurious2k, on 09/03/2008, -2/+6This is the best ever. I'll just make sure and put in a favorable update to the site before I go to court.
- HonestAbe, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4Wikipedia itself says not to cite Wikipedia as a source. You don't cite encyclopedias at all; you use them for research.
- webkami, on 09/03/2008, -2/+6you are doing it wrong
[citation needed] - ApokalypseNow, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Apparently my remembrance was off - it was roughly one more error per article than Brittanica. Here's the cnet story about it:
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-a ... - DocHoliday22, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4For serious homework, and I'm talking at University and College level, I can't see how you could get away with using Wikipedia other than a starting point for your own personal understanding. You would have to be dumb to think that as a student you are the only one that has access to Wikipedia, hence can exclusively copy the content.
- flameboy, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3@opticwind
How embarrassing for you:
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+compared+ ... - philibuster82, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4A major study was done that showed that there was "no significant difference" between a Wikipedia article on a topic and one from any other major encyclopedia. There is a video on Ted.com that discusses the findings, as well as the fact that this type of aggregation of knowledge is probably the future of human creation, due to the advent of the internet.
Anyone who has had anything to do with the court system probably has experienced the incredible subjectivity of a judge, who has arguably far too much discretion in any individual case. It’s scary how the personality of one person in a high place can decide your fate. How many times could a decision gone either way, depending on who was sitting behind the gavel?
It happens ALL THE TIME, from lowly DUI cases to Civil Rights cases.
Now THAT is what is scary about our legal system. - bcarl314, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3While I agree that citing wikipedia AS a resource is foolish, USING wikipedia to FIND a resource is great. Most documents will have links and citations, many of those can be cited IMO.
- flashback99, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3That's pretty stupid. Wikipedia has a ***** of references at the bottom of most articles!
- bluezombie, on 09/03/2008, -3/+6That's it. I will never use Wikipedia for a research paper. I'll cite digg comments instead. And maybe the Guardian and Telegraph.
- azhura, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Woot, another reason to slap down McSame!
- ApokalypseNow, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4If I remember correctly, Wikipedia had only one more error per hundred articles than did Encyclopedia Brittanica - not bad for being completely user-done content.
- joeanon, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2I don't agree with the idea that information is inherently wrong because it's on wikipedia.
Wiki in general is the most convenient and up to date reference around. If you think that information from books is somehow magically correct because it was written by fewer people who need no qualifications other than a publishing contract... you're just another sucker.
You should always question ALL reference.
Calling wikipedia unreliable is like saying open source software is easier to hack because more people can read the source and/or change it.
When in reality open source seems to actually be the most secure and wikipedia many times has the most accurate information. However, there is never a guarantee.
What else are people supposed to do ? Rely on aged text books or corrupt government records ?
All data is prone to mistakes and manipulation. Unless you have a direct link to God and even then he might lie to you just for fun. As they say the lord works in mysterious ways. - inactive, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3WOO JUSTICE BY CONSENSUS.... i like it.
- azhura, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Yeah, how much effort does it take to scroll to the bottom and look up the references? That judge was just being plain lazy...
- mlvassallo, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3You know, I never got that either. When I think about all the papers I ***** my way through in college knowing that some TA was just going to check for APA style, spelling and a reference page it boggles my mind grapes to think that actual, cross referenced, peer reviewed information that one can find on Wikipedia wouldn't be allowed as a source.
- Scuzbucket, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2**Prosecuting attourney** "Well your honor that's not what the defendant's blog said!"
- Nothlit, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2wiki != wikipedia
- ByteGuerilla, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2This.
There's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for this ***** so long as the pages you're citing have their own reliable citations. Really you should cite those sources instead, but a lot of the time these can be papers the relevant professional body wants you to pat $20-$40 for, so it's not always an option. Also, you can use information on Wikipedia pages to take an argument somewhere and then bring in external sources to back it up or disprove it. The use of Wikipedia isn't a problem, it's blind use of Wikipedia that is, and such blind usage is usually so obvious as to make it not worth the failure. - opticwind, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Why are you being dugg down, that was brilliant!
- Gephoria, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1O sup did i hear Google Court? Settle your divorce online?
maybe i just thought it, o well, i'd assume the judge can pick out reliable and unreliable information, and if nothing else he has the power to call in professionals in the field, Kind of lame if he's relying 100% on wikipedia data though - inactive, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I had two jobs.
TA and security guard. Two worst jobs I ever had. - sammiches, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Wasn't there a study a while back in Nature (maybe) that compared Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Britannica and found Wikipedia to be more accurate.
Here: http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-a ... - GovernmentsGun, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1There are methods people should use to evaluate the veracity of any information. Simply because something is on Wikipedia does not make it flawed. If you spot faulty information there, you congratulate yourself for your acumen, and correct it if you feel so inclined.
Its format makes it a much better encyclopedia than the classic ones on paper. Those were much more difficult to correct at the source, and even when they were corrected, most people still held the old versions on their shelves for the next 15 years, if they even bothered to have encyclopedias in their home. - Coffeedemon, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1...just the ones that read your paper and know you have no understanding of the topic beyond the ability to copy/paste seemingly relevant passages.
- opticwind, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Actual link, please?
- czarr, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sour ...
- b8man99, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1I'd prefer a Wikipedia Judge to an old guy too arrogant to look things he doesn't know up.
- Elliuotatar, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Anyone can write a book about science that could be filled with factual errors, and there's no scientist who can take it upon himself to correct it like there are all over wikipedia. So how does that make books better sources of facts?
The only real source you could trust would be peer reviewed journals. But you can't get access to those unless you pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is