Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Wikipedia

I was just skimming through threads and I keep noticing wikipedia as a source. ppl., plz don't use this flawed encyclopedia wannabe as a source. It is a wonderful idea, but it is not practical. Being open to any layperson with a computer seriously compromises its credibility as well as several other things. I'm not saying there aren't some precious gems in it, but it is hardly worth searching through the muck for them. Use an acreddited encyclopedia like Britanica instead :)

In other words Seloc: Anyone can change the text to anything on Wikipedia. It happens all the time. Stupid people go on there and change things and make it completly wrong or put something in there that they believe but is really not true.

Sure, Wikipedia is not accepted as a source if you study at the univeristy, but our discussions here is hardly at that level.

Wikipedia is moderated and has systematic quality control. Surely it is up to the reader to use his or her own brain to filter the information. Of course it can take anything from a few minutes to a few weeks to make the corrections when someone posts questionable information there. In my experience the Wikipedia editors are relatively quick (hours or days) to remove or tag suspicious articles. Most of the articles I look up in Wikipedia are high quality, but a significant number (though much fewer) are biased or incomplete.

However, Wikipedia has far more high quality information easily and freely available than almost any other single source on the web. When you really need rock solid scientific reference material, Wikipedia may help you quickly find some references and get a quick overview on the topic, but of course you need the original sources for scientific reference. Quite regularly I find Wikipedia articles that are as good as any scientific papers on the topic matter. For example at work (private sector) Wikipedia is usually more than a good reference. In science we need more steady sources of course.

*Walks in and starts watching the argument

Someone claims evolution is a lie. He hides behind 'a book' that says so..

Actually I use Wiki only to find Reference Links. Much more useful and accurate. I find all my sites in one go.

That its easily editable is actually a point in favor of Wikipedia instead of a flaw and who says Brittanica doesnt have any flaws? Wikipedia is open and is scrutinized for being so, but there's no-one that can actually check the sources and quality of Brittanica in contrary to Wikipedia.

Many of the writings on Wikipedia are actually written by experts, especially in the field of Computer Science. Ive found no incorrect information on that topic on wikipedia, probably also because of its nature.

lol guys(both genders) look up ginger ninja on wikipedia it hilarious

Death toll

''The FLN estimated in 1962 that nearly eight years of revolution had cost 1.5 million dead from war-related causes.'' -->( EVIL REVOLUTION KILLING PEOPLE.)

Some other Algerian sources later put the figure at approximately 1 million dead, while French officials estimated it at 350,000.

(8 lines of what the french 'sources')

'French military authorities listed their losses at nearly 18,000 dead (6,000 from non-combat-related causes) and 65,000 wounded. European descended civilian casualties exceeded 10,000 (including 3,000 dead) in 42,000 recorded terrorist incidents. According to French figures, security forces killed 141,000 rebel combatants, and more than 12,000 Algerians died in internal FLN purges during the war. An additional 5,000 died in the "café wars" in France between the FLN and rival Algerian groups. French sources also estimated that 70,000 Muslim civilians were killed, or abducted and presumed killed, by the FLN.'

( what is a British historian and a French philosopher, sociologist and political scientist thinks)

Historians, like Alistair Horne and Raymond Aron, consider the actual figure of war dead to be far higher than the original FLN and official French estimates, but below the 1 million adopted by the Algerian government. Horne has estimated Algerian casualties during the span of eight years to be around 700,000. Uncounted thousands of Muslim civilians lost their lives in French army ratissages, bombing raids, and vigilante reprisals. The war uprooted more than 2 million Algerians, who were forced to relocate in French camps or to flee to Morocco, Tunisia, and into the Algerian hinterland, where many thousands died of starvation, disease, and exposure. In addition large numbers of pro-French Muslims were murdered when the FLN settled accounts after independence.

TOTAL 20 lines what mostly french say.

0.7  lines what algeria said ( 1 number)