WIKIPEDIA The Free Encyclopedia

**zanch** · September 9th, 2005 02:01 AM

I just wanna share this site to you guys. Really informative site. Nalaman ko lang ito few weeks ago kasi. hehehe You can search for anything and contribute some articles din.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

**mikaztro** · September 9th, 2005 03:19 AM

Yup! Try typing in the search box "vitara club of the philippines".

**mikey177** · September 9th, 2005 10:17 AM

Yes, it's a good and informative site. It's one of the references my kids use when they have homework, since we don't have a set of encyclopedias at home.

**mantoy** · September 9th, 2005 10:19 AM

yep ok yan complte info ibibigay sa yo. libre pa. unlike the site of brittanica.

**bon** · September 9th, 2005 10:32 AM

Best of all, since it's wiki-based, anybody can add or edit entries in real-time.

**DoctorDoom** · September 9th, 2005 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by bon

Best of all, since it's wiki-based, anybody can add or edit entries in real-time.

That's exactly its own weakness - there is no guarantee the infos there are accurate. Sure, there are peer reviews but Wikipedia itself says it cannot guarantee the "correctness" of the information there.

Quality-based systems must have some form of "control" and "regulation" certified by a governing body. Something Wikipedia does not have. So you just have to believe what is written in Wikipedia "at your own risk".

**bon** · September 9th, 2005 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by DoctorDoom

That's exactly its own weakness - there is no guarantee the infos there are accurate. Sure, there are peer reviews but Wikipedia itself says it cannot guarantee the "correctness" of the information there.

Quality-based systems must have some form of "control" and "regulation" certified by a governing body. Something Wikipedia does not have. So you just have to believe what is written in Wikipedia "at your own risk".

That's true as well. It is actually possible to deface pages and post profanity. However, Wikipedia is not unmoderated. It may take a while for mods (or other users) to notice "graffiti" (esp. in more obscure entries), but for the most part, Wikipedia's a good starting point for research - which is what an encyclopedia is for. No one would do all of his research based purely on an encyclopedia, which is meant to offer broad-stroke info on the widest possible variety of projects.

Wikipedia's weakness is also its greatest strength. Where else can you find an encyclopedia where entries concerning current events (e.g., "New Orleans" or "Katrina" are updated daily, sometimes hourly)?

When Tim Berners-Lee - a physicist at CERN (one of the world's premier nuclear physics labs, in Switzerland) invented the World Wide Web's hypertext markup language, his intent was to allow his co-scientists to easily conduct peer reviews of each other's research, to allow easily collaboration and critiquing. Static web pages were not his intent. The Wiki projects, esp. Wikipedia, are an attempt to bring back the Web to its original collaborative origins.

**DoctorDoom** · September 9th, 2005 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by bon

It is actually possible to deface pages and post profanity. However, Wikipedia is not unmoderated. It may take a while for mods (or other users) to notice "graffiti" (esp. in more obscure entries)

The thing that you should REALLY be concerned about in Wikipedia, are the INTELLIGENT GRAFFITI'S. Because they are very hard to catch.

Example, something like this is possible: "On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong walk on the moon followed by Michael Collins and together they planted the American flag near the Lunar Module." ---- when in fact, it was Edwin Aldrin who walked with Neil Armstrong on the moon. Michael Collins was up there in orbit and never landed on the moon.

These are the kind of graffitis that can easily find their way to Wikipedia because entries there are written by complete strangers whose credibility cannot be ascertained or verified. Unlike in Encyclopaedia Britannica.

That is why you cannot sue Wikipedia for false information.

**gearspeed** · September 9th, 2005 09:05 PM

Nung nagreresearch ako para sa mga assignment ko sa minor subjects dati sa school ito ang ginamit ko..

**mikey177** · September 9th, 2005 09:18 PM

DoctorDoom raised a valid point about the need for Wikipedia owners to be vigilant about the content posted on their site.

In any event, if one is doing a real important project, that person should cross-check his references and gather data from more than one source.

However, for grade school stuff, Wikipedia suffices most of the time.

OT: Another online encyclopedia that one might find useful is MSN Encarta, although some of the articles are only available to paying subscribers.