Wikipedia, aspie heaven or hell?

Post Reply New Topic

Wikipedia can be a very useful tool, long as you remember anyone can alter it so dont assume its 100% accurate.

Anyways, I would sometimes use it to research. I read up on a topic, then that aspie curiosity kicks in, as I click another link, then another, and another. Just pouring over pages and pages of information. Then I realize a few hours have passed. I indulged my curiousity, but at the end of the day, my compulsion to complete something is bugging me

So I get tons of information at whatever perks my interest, but does that off set the feeling of incompleteness at something I can never hope to truely finish

Pure Heaven.

If it wasn't for WP, Wikipedia would be the only website I go on.

Wiki can be Heaven to those of us bored with everything else we normally do while online.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

I said that in the opening post. Its why I called it a tool, and not a referance source

What is a reliable source of information?
Even history was written by the winners.
That being said it is a wonderful waste of time.

Shakespeare said it well.

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

so enjoy.

Like the suffix says, it's a reference point. When I was a kid, we had World Book encyclopediae and the "year books" that came with it. I loved reading that stuff. Before the Internet, when I was in college (late 80's, early 90's) I loved using the closed-circuit computer system (lan?) for looking up references. You could get abstracts or summaries of information and then decide if you were going to actually find the book. It was a whole floor of just reference materials.

So, having Wikipedia is a lot of fun. And despite it's bad rep for giving out bad information, it will tell you if the information is uncited, biased, poorly organized, etc. You can read the footnotes. They forbid contributors from being primary sources of information.

that is why its chronicalled by the bookman

To me it's pure heaven

Not long ago, there was a post here regarding the Asperger's page on Wiki and the horrendous editing on AS over there. It has become a war between the AS editors and the non AS editors, and the non AS edits appear to have won....and won in arbitration. It's sad, because the Aspies had sourced material demonstrating positive traits of AS. It's now be buried in the archived pages. I'll have to see if I still have the archived link and everyone can decide for themselves.

Unreliable? An independent company (I don't remember the details exactly, but can probably look them up if needed) reviewed a selection of articles on Wikipedia against their counterparts in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The surprising discovery was that both had about the same proportion of errors and omissions.

Even though Wikipedia can indeed be edited by anyone, it has a huge number of checks and balances built in (including highly robust source control), so over the long term, articles tend toward being more accurate than not.

Take a look, for example, at just about any article on some part of the pure sciences or mathematics, or well-documented history (such as WWII). First of all, such an article will not likely be edited by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Second, most such articles will include a comprehensive bibliography of supporting documentation at the bottom of the page. Even if the content on the Wikipedia article itself is in error, you can follow the links down at the bottom to find reliable, primary source information.

Articles with relevance to current events will obviously need closer scrutiny, as anyone with an agenda will try to edit the article to reflect their own point of view. But quite honestly, I have found that in general the objectivity of even current-events articles (or articles on contemporary persons, such as national leaders and politicians) tends to be much better than what you'd find in the mass media.

I would be extremely hesitant to jump on the "wikipedia is unreliable" bandwagon.

Someone will inevitably reply "But Avenger, I am an expert on XXXX; I looked it up on Wikipedia and found tons of mistakes!" My retort to that is: then go in there and correct it, properly documented! That's the whole point. Even if someone later goes and puts some of the mistakes back in, your correct version will be permanently embedded in the history, and because Wikipedia has such strict and robust source control, eventually the content of the article will tend toward what is most strongly supported by documentary evidence.

Please don't take this as a plug for Wikipedia; I would certainly never reference it in a formal paper, journal, or thesis; but you can bet for damn sure I would use it to the maximum extent possible to facilitate my research.

That said, I too have lost precious hours clicking link after interesting link, reading about all kinds of stuff. I might have started on an article about mountain biking, for example, eventually to read about quarks or black holes, and often with all the intermediate articles open as tabs in my browser. It's actually quite whimsical going back and seeing the unlikely progression from one subject to something completely unrelated.

Indeed it is very addicting.

its hell/heaven. depending on..... the day. sometimes i get stuck, reading about things i absolutley dont need to know anything about and i forget all the things i have to do while sitting at the computer and it usually ends with.... a waste of time.

That's only too true...and, to be honest it will be years before I recover from the hypocrasy, partiality, abuse and head games even from within arbcom itself... I really believed in Wikipedia until then.

...it wasn't even about winning or losing in arbitration.

I wanted to fight it, not just for the AS article, but to clear my name against a longstanding stalker who spent the past year smearing me behind the scene by email, and a common bully who has worked her way up to have more power over Wikipedia than any admin, who used that situation to her own advantage because I challenged her. She also coldly, deliberately dominates and "spins" the Autism articles against us out of pure spite, because she was defied.

I wasn't allowed to fight it...I developed bronchitis, I have COPD, which means that, neglected, bronchitis can cause irreversible pulmonary damage, I asked for two days to recover and two more to prepare evidence, this request was ignored and I was given a straight choice between my long term health and presenting my evidence.

At one point a member of the arbcom actually declared that I was "continuing to harass" this common bully, without a shred of evidence, at a time when I hadn't said anything about, or to her for 10 months...I don't know what I would have had to have done for this member of arbcom to concede that I hadn't harassed her, but I rather suspect I would have had to have died.

I am sorry, but when all is said and done, Wikipedia is only a complex and sophisticated online game, and when those playing it are prepared to put a real person's long term health on the line, it is WAY out of hand.

I could write you thousands of words on how sad, hypocritical and sick it all was, but that would hardly enhance your day to know that, or mine to rehash it.

The upshot is that AFTER arbcom acknowledged that my claim to have been maliciously stalked was true, the person they know to be responsible is allowed to continue to edit, and prey on people, under a new user ID, while my name continues to be dragged through the mud without restraint (and also linked to my RL ID, in spite of my pleas for those links to be deleted), any attempt at refutation is deleted...it is unreal. Total strangers pop up and tell whopping great lies about me and no-one asks for evidence to back them. People call black white and the arbcom itself pretends impartiality and sagely agrees.

I have even been extensively *diagnosed* by totally unqualified and anonymous Wikipedia editors without sanction while on the other hand, condemned for simply asking another editor if they were unwell.

I honestly believed in the impartiality and integrity of arbcom, but it turned into a kangaroo court, and a lynch mob of the very worst kind hiding behind complex rules that were decided by consensus but which are applied selectively, to suit convenience.

What I would say objectively is this:

In my experience, Jimbo Wales is honestly the greatest, and just exactly who he claims to be (which is why he would never intervene in an arbcom, and I would never ask him to).

Most of the information on Wikipedia is at least extremely useful, though not to be taken as Gospel, if you see something wrong, please fix it.

BUT

...if you value your sanity DO NOT go near the politics of Wikipedia. There are people there who honestly don't care who they harm, or how much, as long as they win the game they are playing as they perceive it...and as an Aspie, without any taste for politic, schmoozing and bullying, you won't stand a chance.

My physical health broke down over New Year because of it, and the rest of me broke down last weekend, and a lot of people, including members of arbcom, just kept putting the boot in even so.

It reminded me of "Lord of the Flies".

What hurt is that I really used to believe in it all.

M

I used to edit at Wikipedia, but I gave up because their rules regarding notability and verifiability are too harsh in some places, to the point that useful information gets excluded. I fought for it, but the idiots were demanding the impossible - it's very US-centric (if you like). It's hard to add material without mainstream coverage - which is a flexible term there - even though any other encyclopedia would accept it.

It can be useful as a basic resource, but as mentioned it's reliability in general is below average. There are worse resources on the Net but there are better ones as well. About the only thing Wikipedia has in it's favour is it's variety. But that's all.