Wikipedia... Can we use it to support our side?

[FTF]

OK, so I'm not Mr. Technology, but I found out that anyone can edit Wiki entries. Maybe I'm a late-comer.. in fact, I'm sure I am... BUT... Think "Gun Politics", "NFA", "Assault Weapon"... tons of people use Wiki as a reference in school papers... or at least use wiki to look stuff up.

Since we 'apparently' have the overwhelming advantage if you look at the statistics, we should use that advantage to edit Wikipedia entries on every subject we care about. As long as you have real, verifiable sources (not antilberal.com etc), and you use a real source to prove a point, it's legitimate. Of course, there is that review process... but from my uneducated eye from reading about Wiki for 2 hours... it seems legit... if you have your ducks in a row you should be good.

All us high-roaders should have ample, statistically proven evidence to support our cause. I'm sure that we could, collectively, destroy a lot of hypocrasy alive and well on wikipedia... intended or not.

Anyone here routinely edit Wiki? I'm no English professor, but I'm thinking about giving it a shot... not just gun stuff... but editing, or contributing to the hundreds of things I search there every month.... things I care about and think I can dispute... again... not just guns... just... everything...

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

What you're thinking is nothing new.


Everyone has tried to use Wiki for their political agendas. He who controls history, controls the future (something like that goes the saying).


Wiki defends against that as it is an open forum type standard.


What we can do is defend against anti-gunners lying on Wiki to mislead people. Wiki is becoming a major, major source of information and learning. We cannot allow them to bias it.


I would not advocate contributing in a pro-gun light, as that will be seen as bias (unfortunately) even though the status-quo and founding of the nation is pro-gun. Some subjects need to be looked at as neutrally as possible just listing pure citable facts. Other subjects can be pro-gun leaning IF they are inherently pro-gun. Such a concealed carry. Certain subjects can be done without having to inject the fact that "controversy" exists over it, like concealed carry. Just because there exists someone against it, doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned that it is up for debate to where you have to state the opposing view.


If you catch an anti-gun lie -- post it so that our community can challenge it and have it changed on Wiki.

 

[SoCalShooter]

I would definetly edit some articles ,but at this point there happens to be a bunch you can't edit.

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

Semi-automatic rifles, including some versions of the AR-15, are often incorrectly labeled as 'assault rifles'.

Thats out of the assault rifle definition page, whoever put it together did a fine job especially by adding that.

Also with wiki if you do feel something is biased and not informational but more politically motivated you can submit it for review.

 

[FTF]

I'm sure it's not new... I'm not that original to where I could even come up with something that ground-breaking.

I guess what I mean is that we have the FACTS? Right? Lots of people spout off facts and figures on here and some of them must be right. We need to get those peer-reviewed facts and figures into the hands of the public... and everyone looks at Wiki nowadays. If we are right, then we are right? Right?

Of course, there is that pesky "constitutional right" thing, that I agree with.. but a lot of people here spout facts... or at least post a heck of a lot of them... why can't we use them? If we have all these facts, then why (to me) does it seem that wiki has more facts against us than for us? Does that mean we are wrong? Perhaps I am looking too deep into it.

I don't want pro-gun or anti-gun... not at all... just fair representation of fact.. but we keep telling ourselves we are right.. but viewed in a non-partisan (supposedly) way like Wiki.. we come off wrong...

Just my .02.

 

[hillbilly]

Wikipedia is totally unreliable due to the fact that any person on the face of planet earth with a computer hooked up to the internet can post whatever he or she wants to on Wikipedia.

You can, if you like, right now, go post that Pythagoras designed the M-1 Garand for use against the Turks during the Crimean War, fought mainly on the North Korean pennisula.

Now if somebody finds it and fixes it the entry will be more accurate. However, if nobody notices for six days, or six weeks, or six months........

I teach college English classes for a living.

It is policy in my course syllabi that papers using Wikipedia or other "Wiki" sources will receive an automatic grade of "F."

Go ahead and use Wiki if you want to.

But if Wikipedia tells you that when the sun is shining and there are no clouds to be seen that the sky appears to be blue, then trust it only when you can find it verified in some other, more reliable source.

hillbilly

 

[DRZinn]

Wikipedia is a good starting point for almost any topic. It gives a better overview than you can get almost anywhere.

I'd never rely on it, though. I use what I find there to get a broad idea, then find specific information from more reliable sources.

It is policy in my course syllabi that papers using Wikipedia or other "Wiki" sources will receive an automatic grade of "F."

Sadly, I've had a professor use it.

 

[FTF]

I just finished my undergrad degree and I routinely used Wiki as a reference.. right or wrong, it was allowed. Some teachers had issues, so in those classes I used the references provided via Wiki instead. Same data, different interpretation I assume.

I'm not saying it's right... but a heck of a lot of 'google' searches send you right to a wiki entry..and that is what the public is after.. instant information and instant gratification. Not everyone who searches on a topic is intending to write a research paper.

 

[DerringerUser]

Already done so on urban dictionary for "NRA". Its interesting, you can see what other people have written too.

 

[squadfounder]

Wikipedia has proved quite handy for me when I need a bit of quick information, but like a forum, anybody can post anything, so a grain of salt is definitely in order.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Well, not just anybody can post anything. And historically speaking the number of people contributing to Wikipedia is very small compared to those using it. So the concept that it must be awful because it's just a forum is a bit off.

Earlier I had posted a link to the Wikipedia entry for the NFA of '34, here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act_of_1934

Instead of just bad mouthing, how about going and reading the entry, and then come up with some commentary? I like the fact that it touches on political and control issues as the origin of the NFA, with the "fight crime" concept used as a cover.

 

[PirateJoe]

Wikipedia is totally unreliable due to the fact that any person on the face of planet earth with a computer hooked up to the internet can post whatever he or she wants to on Wikipedia.

You can, if you like, right now, go post that Pythagoras designed the M-1 Garand for use against the Turks during the Crimean War, fought mainly on the North Korean pennisula.

Now if somebody finds it and fixes it the entry will be more accurate. However, if nobody notices for six days, or six weeks, or six months........

I teach college English classes for a living.

It is policy in my course syllabi that papers using Wikipedia or other "Wiki" sources will receive an automatic grade of "F."

Go ahead and use Wiki if you want to.

But if Wikipedia tells you that when the sun is shining and there are no clouds to be seen that the sky appears to be blue, then trust it only when you can find it verified in some other, more reliable source.

hillbilly

i've never understood this logic. any jo-shmo can host a website and put whatever he wants on it, and claim its factual information. the thing about wikipedia is, there's a peer review process. sure it may not catch all the misinformation, but its still there. much better than grabbing info off random sites on the internet.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The cool thing about wiki is it allows information from both sides of the argument.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Actually, I read an article that spoke of as study that found that Wiki (at least on the sciences and more academic stuff) is just as accurate if not better than the Encyclopedia Britannica.


Except with Encyclopedia's, you get bias.

 

[Ieyasu]

I teach college English classes for a living.

It is policy in my course syllabi that papers using Wikipedia or other "Wiki" sources will receive an automatic grade of "F."

This kind of "thinking" or "teaching" reallly ticks me off. What's wrong with using a source if the verbiage is cited and the citation checks-out? Wikipedia does have some good artilces. Why don't you teach your students to think critically instead of reacting reflexively or dogmatically? College kids should learn a modicum of critical intelligence and not cite any source blindly.

 

[obm]

Actually, I read an article that spoke of as study that found that Wiki (at least on the sciences and more academic stuff) is just as accurate if not better than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

here you go:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

instead of dogging wikipedia all the time... like others have suggested, why don't we use our collective firearms knowledge to contribute to the improvement of the articles on wikipedia?

 

[slzy]

hillbilly,may i ask where you received your degree?

 

[hillbilly]

I expected these reactions.

Here are my answers.

1) "Peer Review" does not mean allowing the information, maybe, to get checked out by "the marketplace" if you will.

Peer Review means exactly what it says. Peers (i.e. certified, degreed, knowledgable experts in the the specific field) deliberately and closely check out something BEFORE it is published.

Wikipedia is NOT peer reviewed in any sense of the word.

Stuff gets "published" on Wikipedia FIRST, and then maybe it gets checked out and then maybe it doesn't.

The folks who "check it out" maybe are certified, degreed experts, and then maybe they aren't.

That is NOT peer review in any sense of the terminology.


2) My policy to automatically flunk any and all Wiki'ed papers is a sound one and has the following specific educational goal in mind.

It forces the students to do actual, real research using actual "peer reviewed" journals (published by professional experts for other professional experts) and that incredibly old-fashioned, out-of-date technology known as "books."

Printing off several Wiki entries that a student found in about 45 seconds and mindlessly quoting them without doing any other further, deeper study is NOT research on a college level, no matter how you slice it.

Students go to the Wiki page, and stop.

Students, being who and what they are, typically DO NOT go beyond Wiki once they get there.

Therefore, I make them go beyond Wiki by eliminating Wiki as a citeable source.

Students in my class are free to look at Wiki. But they can't cite it. Any and all "Information" on Wiki that they find, they must verify in other more reliable sources.

Ieyasu, that is the definition of "critical thinking."

hillbilly

 

[slzy]

what are some of wikis' gross inacurate claims,obvious vandalization and hoaxes not withstanding. if any body really thought siegenthaler was involved in the murder of the kennedys,well,they deserve to. and,in another good one was a spurious biography of bennett cerf. john charles daly would have fell off his chair laughing. someone with normal intelligence should clearly see when their leg is being pulled. otoh,when an error of concern is made by peers,such as when trevor-roper declared the "hitler diary" to be genuine,the mistake is duly noted immediately and ubquitously.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Yes, we can use Wikipedia to support our side, since we've got truth, history and the law going for us.

The problem with Wikipedia is that the final edit does not go to he who has the best and most accurate facts, nor to he who has created broad concensus.

The final edit goes to he who is most persistent.

Here's a good example of the use of Wikipedia by a bunch of guys on our side: Documenting The Joyce Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation

 

[Ieyasu]

I expected these reactions.

I expected yours as well.

Ieyasu, that is the definition of "critical thinking."

Wow. I'll try to keep this civil...

Peer Review means exactly what it says. Peers (i.e. certified, degreed, knowledgable experts in the the specific field) deliberately and closely check out something BEFORE it is published.

You obviously have not read, and critically examined, many peer reviewed papers.

Does the name Michael Bellesiles ring a bell? His stuff was "peer reviewed." True, the degree to which he made bogus citations is an anomaly, but even in medical journals, biased, fraudalent and shoddy work is published.

It forces the students to do actual, real research using actual "peer reviewed" journals (published by professional experts for other professional experts) and that incredibly old-fashioned, out-of-date technology known as "books."

This is NOT critical thinking as you falsely claim in your post. As the point I was trying to make in my original post was, critical thinking is checking the citations for yourself and verifying sources. Regardless of the source, it should be verified That is critical thinking. Quoting from "peered reviewed" journals is not critical thinking.

Printing off several Wiki entries that a student found in about 45 seconds and mindlessly quoting them without doing any other further, deeper study is NOT research on a college level, no matter how you slice it.

Printing off several peered reviewed journal articles that a student found in a library (regardless of how much time was spent) and mindlessly quoting them without doing any other further, deeper study is NOT research at the collegiate level, no matter how you slice it.

Students in my class are free to look at Wiki. But they can't cite it. Any and all "Information" on Wiki that they find, they must verify in other more reliable sources.

At least that's a step in the right direction, I'd modify that to say they can cite sources if the citations check-out, regardless of the source. You could also require, as many teachers do, to at least cite x-number of "hard" references.

P.S. Here's what one MD has to say about medical research (and, yes, I've read medical papers so I'm not merely parroting his claims):

Although the public generally perceives medical research as the highest order of precision, much of the epidemiologic research is, in fact, rather imprecise and understandably so because it has been conducted principally by individuals with no formal education and little on-the-job training in the scientific method. Consequently, studies are often poorly designed and data are often inappropriately analyzed and interpreted. Moreover, biases are so commonplace, they appear to be the rule, rather than the exception. It is virtually impossible not to recognize that many researchers routinely manipulate and/or interpret their data to fit preconceived hypotheses, rather than manipulate hypotheses to fit their data. Much of the literature, therefore, is nothing less than an affront to the discipline of science. . . . The fraud is so pervasive that it was considered necessary to take some liberties with the usual staid rhetoric of scientific review and inject stronger language to emphasize the problem. . . . Equally culpable are the editors of the many journals who publish articles without regard to their quality or scientific import."

 

[geekWithA.45]

Ieyasu's above remarks regarding peer reviewed "research" are spot on.

Far, far too much of what is published in top shelf peer reviewed journals, (Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, etc) supposedly represent the best "science" has to offer.

As an undergrad, our Thursday evening Stats & Research Methodology class excercise was to play "spot the flaws" in such journals, and they were big enough to drive trucks through, and to convince me that what was being practiced was neither the scientific method, nor any other reliable form of empiricism.

 

[XavierBreath]

P.S. Here's what one MD has to say about medical research (and, yes, I've read medical papers so I'm not merely parroting his claims):

Quote:
Although the public generally perceives medical research as the highest order of precision, much of the epidemiologic research is, in fact, rather imprecise and understandably so because it has been conducted principally by individuals with no formal education and little on-the-job training in the scientific method. Consequently, studies are often poorly designed and data are often inappropriately analyzed and interpreted. Moreover, biases are so commonplace, they appear to be the rule, rather than the exception. It is virtually impossible not to recognize that many researchers routinely manipulate and/or interpret their data to fit preconceived hypotheses, rather than manipulate hypotheses to fit their data. Much of the literature, therefore, is nothing less than an affront to the discipline of science. . . . The fraud is so pervasive that it was considered necessary to take some liberties with the usual staid rhetoric of scientific review and inject stronger language to emphasize the problem. . . . Equally culpable are the editors of the many journals who publish articles without regard to their quality or scientific import."

I stopped listening to much "research" when I realized that the vast majority of medical/nursing research is funded by companies with products to sell. I have heard far too many drug/product representatives tout their products with no idea of the scientific method. Over the past ten years, I have responded with a simple phrase. "Show me the science." If they are unable to produce the science in 30 seconds, they are shown the door. I have no time for such tripe.

Professional journals are little different. Contributors seem to have little knowledge of the scientific method, and one wonders just how much actual clinical experience they have. These journals are guides, but a professional must draw his/her own conclusions from his own clinical experience. He must not blindly mix and match information from a myriad of sources to support a preconcieved conclusion. That is not research, that is propaganda.

One of the first criteria of judging a source is to determine whether there is a hidden agenda in the information provided. The almost intantaneous peer review of wiki type sources destoys the hidden agendas. Where peer review is absent, delayed or obstructed, you find instances such as COX-2 inhibitors being linked to heart attacks after the product has been on the market for several years, despite clinicians waving red flags. I submit that there are far more hidden agendas in periodical publications than many researchers care to admit. As such, the information in these sources is suspect. Research must be done in a laboratory, not a library.

 

[Ieyasu]

As an undergrad, our Thursday evening Stats & Research Methodology class excercise was to play "spot the flaws" in such journals, and they were big enough to drive trucks through, and to convince me that what was being practiced was neither the scientific method, nor any other reliable form of empiricism.

Wow... Now that is a great example of how ciritcal inteligence is taught! I'm sure that exercise opened many eyes and it was a lesson learned the students won't soon forget.

Analyzing and verifying sources is one major component of critical inteligence. Spotting bias is another. I wonder how many in hillbilly's class would spot the bias in this excerpt from an article in the Washington Post:

"The days sharp exchanges underscored the contentiousness of gun control legislation in Congress, whose members--much like the general public--are divided between strong advocates of gun ownership and those increasingly appalled by shootings such as the one in Michigan."
---"Hatch Balks at Gun Bill Negotiations, March 8, 2000, Page A04

(I added the italics. That phrase contains the logical fallacy of false choice, implying that gun owners are not appalled by shootings.)

 

[Ieyasu]

These journals are guides, but a professional must draw his/her own conclusions from his own clinical experience. He must not blindly mix and match information from a myriad of sources to support a preconcieved conclusion. That is not research, that is propaganda.

Another THR poster that gets it. It's great to see.

It's sad that so many teachers give kids poor criteria for using the Web or doing "research" and think they are instilling critical intelligence or teaching kids how to do research.

 

[benEzra]

Wikipedia is totally unreliable due to the fact that any person on the face of planet earth with a computer hooked up to the internet can post whatever he or she wants to on Wikipedia.

Compare Wikipedia articles on firearms issues, to peer-reviewed medical journal articles on firearms issues, or print encyclopedia articles on firearms issues. Wiki is generally more likely to get the facts straight. (Go look up "assault weapon" in your peer-reviewed paper dictionary, or an encyclopedia, and then go look it up on Wikipedia. See which definition is more objective.)

In fact, if you look at articles on other highly technical or scientific topics, you'll often find that you'll get much better information from Wikipedia (including links to primary sources) than you will from an off-the-shelf encyclopedia.

The problem with regular encyclopedias, magazine articles, and even a lot of books is that no author can be an expert on everything. What Wikipedia has done is to provide a forum in which those who are extremely knowledgeable in a given field can essentially form a gigantic committee of experts to hash out a state-of-the-field article, with a better chance of avoiding single-writer or small-group biases that can mess you up with traditional sources.

Yes, anybody can post something wrong in Wikipedia--and anybody who notices the error, and corrects it, can. Wikipedia also provides the editorial history of any given page, what was changed, and why, with the "peer review" published right there for all to see instead of being a secret. That also allows you to see why particular things were deleted or altered, and the primary sources used to back up the decision.