Wiki

I tend to agree, there is a lot of rubbish and mis-leading information on the web, I'm not an avid user of Wiki, but it does seem reasonably okay...

I wouldn't use it as an absolutly true or factual knowledge base though, so I wouldn't expect others to either.

In fact its the same as using advice given on here, its really up to the reader to make their own mind up on whether to act on the information or to look for further advice to confirm what is the truth.

Some of the 'homework' questions asked on here have tempted me to answer with a load of nonsense to show the questioner that they must search for the truth themselves... Unfortunately misleading the questioner in some cases could be dangerous.

John.

How would answer this one then?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/11372/Steam-Turbines

I agree with the comments of others. If I quote Wikipedia, I do so because I believe the wording is better than I could come up with on short notice. Part of the answers are to inform people. If my answer is confusing, then I have failed, so quoting another source is good.

As already stated, Wiki also has references.

Usually Googling the subject yields many references of which Wiki is only one.

You should use it as a starting point to understand the concept and not the final answer.

I think the most important contribution in wiki comes from the ability to tracking back the previous version. Reliability means refinements but it still needs alot of research to do. We simply quote wiki because we think that we can be little bit luxurious by quoting it. i think we should quote wiki and its version (date on which you thought it was correct.)

Reference is an object designator, it is merely a pointing tool to where the connection lies. If you read, a book on a subject and stop there, your point or reference is narrowly defined. If on the other hand your research covers multiple sources with an eye for comparisons, which you can judge on their own merit, evaluate commonalities, weigh your preconceived expected out come and pick the sources that best suit your acceptable level of acceptance.

That being said if you only limit your acceptance to what is historically accepted as fact no, mysteries would be discovered or rediscovered, no dreams would be fulfilled.

joshua

You said it yourself

wikipedia is no better a source than any other website

That being the case, any website that we refer to is no better than any other website, wiki included.

Wikipedea has gained popularity as a reference steadily. It's better than a regular paper encylopedia (I still have my old one, 40 years old), since information gets updated constantly. Whether the information is valid or correct is anybody's guess but then, that's true of the regular encylopedias too.

In my old encyclopedia, the moon landings were still the future and some of the concepts then were erroneous.

On the BBC breakfast news some months back they spoke about this very subject. Because I was rushing to get ready for work at the time I didn't listen intently but I remember them saying there was a study done on wiki's reliability. Can't remember who commisioned it but they found that because wiki was updated regularly it was actually a small percentage more accurate than any published encyclopedea.

I do agree though that nowadays people will come out with a fact and that's the end of it. I'm right cos someone said so. My first year in high school taught me that you always look at the source of any information. Is it a primary or secondary source? When was this information made available and by who? Did the person publishing the information have a bias towards a certain conclusion.

For those reasons wiki has the potential to be very inaccurate but it seems to balance itself out and has in my opinion become a very useful aid to those annoying questions which nobody seems to know the answer to.

Preachin' to the Choir here. I have been anti Wiki since day one. Just a lazy man's way of doing research.

Pipeman, with you on that one. Garbage in, garbage out.

And there are alot better websites for engineering info than Wiki.

Try any of the governing or engineering bodies like SAE, ASME, ASTM,etc

just to name a few.

Happy Hunting

Seen the old Wiki, before they got busted for not checking (and oh, is the site not under fire again for posts by corporate?) used by a few peers citing Wiki without checking accuracy and ended starting a war between the field and office.

I am a researcher.

As stated singular source referencing is typically undesireable.

However in an effort obtain a variety of sources I will start with what is the best for general statements, points etc. Or more directly: Keywords.

I have found that if I begin at one source that is very thourough (note that I did not say accurate) I can save myself tremendous amounts of time in the process of cross referencing, source checking, history, related subject, biography etc.

Wiki is a great source for that purpose. Just as Yahoo Finance is for finance, the Secretary of States office (U.S.) is for legal business names of American corporations and so on.

For me Wiki is more often than not my starting point. It is seldom if ever my ending point.

cr3

I'm with You C rummel3 on this one.

Getting concepts and keywords to further research and pursue is the foundation of inquiry. Its never only place i check, but often I check and calibrate there.

When I was a pup, finding information was the problem. today, its sorting out the crap to get to the useful information.

Editing/discernment is the key gift today.

milo "ditto to reply 13 as well"

When I was a pup, finding information was the problem. today, its sorting out the crap to get to the useful information.

Editing/discernment is the key gift today.

And it seems as if it happened overnight!

cr3

I believe the reply to check Wikipedia is an attempt to get the person to do some research themselves. There are many post were others believe that they are to do all the work to come up with answers.

Hello to everybody

I do use Wikipedia for a starting point in my inquiries. It is a wonderfull tool to get a newby broadscope of many topics.

But as many have already posted, the validity of this information, just as the validity of any book, magazine, paper... is the sources or the repeatability of the facts that they pose.

It is up to the reader to either check or simply believe what they read.

For students who want to do their homework it is a wonderful source to cite, but not to copy. I believe that teachers shouls "wiki" their homework to find out the copycats. :)

Wiki wiki