Wikipedia - Critical Thinking

[kopilo]

Can sources where almost anyone can edit and post such as Wikipedia and Wikinews.org legitimatly claim to be objective? (In the sense of :expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations).

Keeping in mind that Wikipedia and Wikinews has protocols in-place to try and prevent incorrect data.

 

[David Gould]

No individual is objective. However, the combination of many individuals can come close to being so. This is one of the benefits of the scientific process - many individuals review the work of others and because there are many individuals, the bias of each individual disappears. This is a little trickier with wiki, as the process depends on an ability for facts to be checked. I think that the internet provides us with the ability to do so, provided we are sceptical about all the sources we examine.

 

[Cleany]

yes it can, actually no, yes, maybe, no it cant, yes.

yes, no.

no - yes.

i dont know.

 

[Moros]

Wikipedia and critical thinking don't belong in the same sentence. To be fair, the Wikipedia hype shouldn't be about the fact that anyone can contribute; after all, nothing stops the average Joe from contributing knowledge in the first place - some people even major in such things at college. These people are called history majors. No, Wikipedia's revolutionary new self-defeating concept is that the average Joe is guaranteed to be published.

This is what discredits Wikipedia.

 

[kopilo]

Wikipedia and critical thinking don't belong in the same sentence. To be fair, the Wikipedia hype shouldn't be about the fact that anyone can contribute; after all, nothing stops the average Joe from contributing knowledge in the first place - some people even major in such things at college. These people are called history majors. No, Wikipedia's revolutionary new self-defeating concept is that the average Joe is guaranteed to be published.

This is what discredits Wikipedia.

Actually critical thinking does belong in the same sentance as wikipedia if you take for granted I mean analysing open articles which anyone can edit. Also my uni lecturer for Fund. of IT. Regularly goes through some of the technological side of wikipedia and finds it an ok source for IT but not a good source for humanitarian subjects.

Also the adverage Joe is not garanteed to be published on Wikipedia, or if they are they may be removed as according to wikipedia's policies for putting articles up for deletion. God Awful Fanfiction had a fairly comprehensive article up for around a week and then it was taken down because of that clause.

 

[Abbadon]

Wikipedia and critical thinking don't belong in the same sentence. To be fair, the Wikipedia hype shouldn't be about the fact that anyone can contribute; after all, nothing stops the average Joe from contributing knowledge in the first place - some people even major in such things at college. These people are called history majors. No, Wikipedia's revolutionary new self-defeating concept is that the average Joe is guaranteed to be published.

This is what discredits Wikipedia.

Average Joe gets an article published.

Then College Major Dude changes the article to be factual.

Wikipedia - 50,000 nerds doing your homework for you!

 

[PapaLandShark]

No individual is objective. However, the combination of many individuals can come close to being so. This is one of the benefits of the scientific process - many individuals review the work of others and because there are many individuals, the bias of each individual disappears. This is a little trickier with wiki, as the process depends on an ability for facts to be checked. I think that the internet provides us with the ability to do so, provided we are sceptical about all the sources we examine.

Yes...but who checks the checkers?

/plays Scooby Doo spooky music

 

[DailyBlessings]

No, but it can explain the issue to you as it is understood by the majority.

 

[David Gould]

Yes...but who checks the checkers?

/plays Scooby Doo spooky music

They all check each other.