There are plenty of Wikipedia forks out there, and thanks to the ShareAlike licensing any high-quality results can be fed back into the commons. The ecosystem is more important than the platform: perhaps wikipedia is faster, and another is more precise, and between them you get high-quality data.
Re: stupid users' edit bots auto reverting things, WP claim to have been reducing that bullshit, I've noticed a lot less of it.
CodonAUG <elsbernd@gmail.com> wrote:
I became a bit jaded with Wikipedia when I tried to update the Wooly Mammoth article. I revised a section on their relatedness and provided citations. Someone with a history of edits simply stated that I was wrong and removed it. The edit was then lost beneath thousands of unrelated bot spam-edits. I don't intend on spending a couple hours of researching to have some jerk who didn't read the sources delete my work.I do still love Wikipedia and rely on it for general stuff but I have no respect for its setup. It would be great if there were a Wikipedia spinoff that would only update articles once and month and during that month there can be discussions about how to revise things. 12 article revisions a year is way easier to handle as a human than the nigh-infinite amount that there are currently.
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:56:52 PM UTC-7, phillyj wrote:I was reading the commentary article "We Must Face the Threats" in J
Neuro [1] and noticed that they cite Wikipedia. Now, I realize that this
isn't a regular journal article but teachers and professors seem to
treat Wikipedia as absolutely verboten. If an article in a journal can
cite Wikipedia, then why can't it be used as a source in informal
assignments like homeworks. A research paper would require harder stuff
but in my experience thus far, Wikipedia is shunned by instructors.
Comments?
[1]http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/37/11417.full.pdf
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment