Wikipedia

[alatar]

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]

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

[Dhampir]

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]

Spot the errors...

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

[Jaume]

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]

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.

[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.

[alatar]

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

[anubis88]

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]

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

[Jaume]

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

Because it is funnier to criticize I suppose...

[alatar]

It says 288, and in the next paragraph it says 264.

[anubis88]

It says 288, and in the next paragraph it says 264.

Yeah, i missed it.

[alatar]

Still, you've got to love wikipedia for finding fact's, very usefull, despite it's flaws.

[Captain Trek]

I don't know how valid this is... But apparantly one study concluded that Wikipedia was no worse than the Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of making errors...

[konny]

Wikipedia becomes the more reliable the more people read, write and correct an article, as a rule of thumb. You should also check different wikis (if your knowledge of languages allow) and take a look at the discussion pages of each.

[konny]

It says 288, and in the next paragraph it says 264.

288 is the year when the Marmertines conquered Messana. Not realy an error but left out what is meant.

[russia almighty]

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]

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...

[Tiberius Nero]

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...

Besides it would be against the Wikipedia "no original research" policy to include interpretation of historical events; at best one can mention in there prominent views of historians, ancient and modern, on this and that, but not present them as definitive and final.

[Dhampir]

Encyclopedia present only factual synthesis. They are utterly useless for academic work when you need interpretative and primary source material.

[delablake]

Encyclopedia present only factual synthesis. They are utterly useless for academic work when you need interpretative and primary source material.

exactly my point.
Wikipedia is useful as a source of links and sometimes even for secundary literature. I have the impression that it might be quite informative in the electronics/physics/chemistry and botanics sector (at least data on natural sciences I have to take as given ) but I found it more than questionable in terms of the humanities. Here it's more prone to smug smattering and interpretation...