Wikipedia

**alatar** · 05-03-2008, 16:37

I was looking at Wikipedia, and looking up some dates, when I saw this

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

Spot the errors...

**CaesarAugustus** · 05-03-2008, 17:11

Haven't you ever heard of a little thing called truth by consensus?

**Dhampir** · 05-03-2008, 17:44

The most important reason why Wikipedia is not a scholarly source is not because it is openly editable, but because no encyclopedia is a scholarly source.

**Tiberius Nero** · 05-03-2008, 17:46

Originally Posted by alatar

Spot the errors...

Why don't you just spoil it for us, eh?

**Jaume** · 05-03-2008, 18:30

Wikipedia is just for having an idea of what you're searching, simply for an approximation. If you want extensive articles and rare information, you'll have to search on books...

**alatar** · 05-03-2008, 19:54

It's the date of the first punic wars, it contradicts itself.

Although I do like wikipedia, if you need facts and dates it is generally good.

**anubis88** · 05-03-2008, 21:03

Originally Posted by alatar

It's the date of the first punic wars, it contradicts itself.

Although I do like wikipedia, if you need facts and dates it is generally good.

Well i see 264-241 si i don't get what youre talking about

**I Am Herenow** · 05-03-2008, 21:10

If you can see a mistake in a Wikipedia page, why don't you just edit the page to rectify the problem?

**Tellos Athenaios** · 05-03-2008, 20:05

Wikipedia is excellent for getting some quick background or thechnical overview for most topics in science, math and electronics. It's however not as useful for history most of the time; due to the fact that history more often than not deals with interpretation and source-evaluation -- which is a long shot from the 'core' focus of encyclopedia: factoids.

**alatar** · 05-03-2008, 20:13

Also it suffers from political motivated editors trying to make themselves look better.

**russia almighty** · 05-04-2008, 18:18

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Wikipedia is excellent for getting some quick background or thechnical overview for most topics in science, math and electronics. It's however not as useful for history most of the time; due to the fact that history more often than not deals with interpretation and source-evaluation -- which is a long shot from the 'core' focus of encyclopedia: factoids.

Ehh, I've found its debated heavily about using subject focused encyclopedias, and whether they can be used. For example, some profs and teachers would have no problem with say a psychology encyclopedia, or a chemistry encyclopedia being used for a source. Others would still be lol no.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 05-04-2008, 19:05

Obviously one encyclopedia isn't going to cut it for using as the source of all your wisdom and knowledge; no matter what the subject. However; the point I wanted to make was that math, science and electronics are suitable for looking up in encylcopedia (if only for further sources) as these fields focus on established facts and information. History does not; hence an encyclopedia will virtually always be lacking as a source for whatever the historical subject.

For a quick comparison: if you want to know about the difference between DVI-D and HDMI; Wikipedia will be your friend in these confusing HD times.
But if you want to know the political motives for the diplomatic moves of the Tyrannoi of Syrakousai during the 1st Punic War... I wouldn't count on it...