Wikipedia - How Much Do You Rely On It?

For non-controversial topics I think it's a good 1st source of information. I sometimes quote it here on CR4.

For controversial topics (politics, economics, 'pop' science topics like 'global warming', etc.) it's a useless source due to the bias of the editors.

Unless you already know the topic and are simply using Wikipedia as a source of data or graphs, it's best to be highly skeptical of what is written there.

For facts, a good start.

For subjective, political, or highly opinionated topics--not so good. The topics are heavily biased towards complete openness no matter what the result. It's no mere coincidence that Wikileaks uses the similar moniker (though it is not a public wiki).

Look up Occupy Movement for an example.

OK. Here is a test: how good are the Wikipedia results for thermal conductivity of various mineral species?

I would not expect to find any information on that subject at Wiki.

It is far too specialized and requires testing of too many variables to be found in a casual information source.

There are many good sources on the subject, as I'm sure you know.

We both can probably name many technical subjects that neither of us would expect to find there, nor use if we did.

Actually I did find some useful information on thermal conductivity, but I used engineering toolbox for a better look at my particular problem, which was to come up with a linear combination of minerals that would mimic the kind of mineral in my system, a calcium aluminosilicate mixed with iron oxide/silicate, and also containing some proportion of "white mica", an aluminosilicate (complicated one at that) containing potassium along with calcium. I think it got the a good value within a factor of 2, and that makes for good horseshoes in my neighborhood. I was able to "predict" the mineral thickness on surface condenser tubes to a fairly good approximation of the thinkness already observed to be present. Now to figure out how to get rid of this stuff. Acid won't touch it.

Engineering toolbox is a nice goto tool

Your groundwater has a lot of Fluoride in it too, I understand.

Yes, but I have never seen enough flouride here locally in Lubbock to cause Calcium fluoride scale (thankfully). At Plains or Hereford, Texas, this situation could possibly exist, although the calcium would still have to be through the proverbial roof. We do have moderately silica in our well water the city supplies us with. Strangely enough, not everyone in Lubbock operating a cooling tower has the same exact scale, either because they are not really on the same water (some use local well water), others have all metal cooling towers, still others have different tube metallurgy. Apparently, all these things make a difference with respect to this aluminosilicate scale. Maybe it has something to do with a high local pH due to strongly cathodic admiralty brass and a concrete cooling tower basin. Who knows. Too many variables to isolate them all.

There's a lot of Calcium in the water at our rental properties. Three of the houses have an evap cooler aka swamp cooler. One came with a timer that dumps the water after X hours of use (gets the mineral rich water out), we just replaced one with a similar system and the last one just keeps recycling the water. At the end of the season, the one without the timer/pump set up has terrible mineral deposits, while the other two aren't great, but they're acceptable.

At least it's better than the well water we had when I was growing up. Tons of hardness and a good amount of radium (15X the government's maximum limit).

Where did you grow up? Terlingua, TX? Only place I know of where the water comes out of the ground hot in both ways.

As to your swamp coolers recycling...maybe you goofed on the timer/valve set-up. One other option is to put the evap coolers on soft water supply. That way, any deposits that build up will be salt only, and the natural silica in the water will prevent corrosion to a very high degree of performance. Simply rinse off salt deposits periodically, or at the end of the season.

James, I grew up in a small suburb outside of Chicago; Glenview, IL. Back around 1980, they did a test on our drinking water and the Radium levels were through the roof. At the time, they didn't have the pipes laid to import water from the city, so it took a while for us to get good drinking water. Nobody had bottled water at the time (well, one of my friends did) and nobody had RO systems in their house. My dad hooked up a water filter, but I don't think it filtered the Radium.

The swamp cooler recycling works great. It's an additional pump that has a timer built in - very dummy proof. The base of the cooler has an additional bracket where the 2nd pump is located. Instead of the water pumping to the top of the media, it just dumps it out the overflow.

Your idea about using a water softener would be great, except I don't think my tenants would keep the salt filled. It's hard enough to have them use the swamp cooler properly!

I have to agree, I use it for a start point for leads to other info. At presentI am preparing overview of the Russia Oil Industry...... lots of good info, but more importantly, the links to other info you'd not get anywhere else.

I believe it is one of the most important site on the internet today, and I too sometimes quote on CR4!

Thanks for the input. I typically use it as a starting point, but I've noticed that there are a lot of opinions. I've also found a lot of data which is incorrect. The source is referenced, but the information is wrong. Kinda goes with the belief that it must be true if it's on the internet.

Your last sentence must be the result of years of blissful marriage!

Thanks for the feedback. Your tip to check references is so important and missed by many Wikipedia users. I've found a few references that came from Linkedin - I'm not sure how much you can trust that source.

Good for maps, graphs, places, etc.

Often a good starting point in the quest for the truth, but certainly not to be considered the end...much like Snopes.

I consider it about 95% accurate on most subjects.

Fortunately as other stated on the more politically or emotionally driven topics it does get updated fairly often when questionable info gets put up.

I think it is more reliable than state intelligence. Less worms in the can.

First stop for quick things to reconfirm. Never the last stop to educate myself.

Seems great for arguments on CR4. :)

I is great value in my opinion and as the eagle man said you can check the references and even the change history, if you want.

It is nice if information of some obscure item/or phrase can be found on Wikipedia.

I think Wikipedia is a great resource on par with public TV and Radio and by only taking donations it helps to keep the content as objective as possible.

The best thing about it is that, if there is information there that is out-of-date or just plain incorrect, one can edit it to improve it.

Can't get through a day at work, or even a day off without consulting it at least once. I am amazed at the diversity of topics covered. If nothing else, it's a good starting point to find an answer. It is a very convenient short cut to find common equations I haven't used in 5 years and can't quite remember.

WIKI, I am finding is a great source of information and a source of further qualifying info as well. I do wish we had such a thing before I retired.

Wikipedia is just one of the references I use, and have used it several times to as Lyn says "answer an inane question from an ANON poster"! I'm not going to do a bunch of web diving to answer a question for someone that is too lazy to search a WIKI answer themselves.

I usually do a GOOGLE search and filter the results through my head as to what is a reputable site that has good information.

I would say I use Wikipedia about 5% - 10% of the time to find answers.

I believe that since Wikipedia entries can be "corrected" that there is a chance the information may be skewed, incorrect or just plain fabrication.

I live by the statement:

"Trust, but VERIFY!"

BA

Thanks for your input. I find it interesting how this group uses Wikipedia as a tool. I myself use it as a research tool, however I do find quite a few errors, so I try to verify the info I get from Wiki.

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source for a citing reference on college papers.

It has a lot of valid information but it can be altered by anyone.

I would think it is ok for information that is not considered a controversial subject. However, when it comes to controversial matter, I don't trust any site on line as credible. They all seem to have a slant towards their personal views. Snopes was considered a reliable source and they too have been shot themselves down to being par with Wikipedia, they have their personal view slants and misinformation as well.

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source for a citing reference on college papers.

Your correct, but you check Wikipedia reference, they are valid.

A lot of professors will tell you that's what you do.

It has a lot of valid information but it can be altered by anyone.

I'm waiting for it to turn political if ^{(it didn't already )} and then rewrite history.

I agree. I have used Wiki to look up things and I see the references listed.

I wonder why college professors don't accept Wiki as a reference? Is it because Wiki makes it too easy to write a paper; is it because the professor wants the student to "earn" their grade; or is it because the information is questionable?

Don't get me started on the competence of the new work force. I would interview college age young adults for a position as my assistant. This required basic phone skills, customer service, light filing and communication with our corporate office. I was shocked at the quality of the applicants. Misspelled words, poor grammar, terrible math skills, etc. You wonder how they graduated high school.

Not all were like this, but I'd say the majority were. In addition, they wouldn't even wear the proper clothes for an interview (jeans are okay, right?). Luckily, I did have some exceptional assistants over the years, which I am grateful. I know it could've been horrible.

One final note. After the 2008 "recession", things got so bad that I was able to hire a lady with an MBA as my assistant! Since she was an assistant, I couldn't pay much, yet she was happy to have a job and appreciated the opportunity. One of the gals on the floor, who had just graduated with her MBA, was still a Member Service Rep. She told me that she couldn't find a job, so she stayed at the credit union. The irony is that my friend and I both have engineering degrees with MBA's (and were paid well) were sitting near newly graduated MBA's that were making less than 1/5 of what we were. I think we were pretty good at our job, but I don't think we were worth 5 of them.

If you hired someone with a college degree to work for you, would you rely on their work, knowing that their work product was derived from Wiki resources?

I think I may have had an engineer that worked for me that should have had that on his credentials....

I wonder why college professors don't accept Wiki as a reference?

It can be unreliable. Remember Check your sources, Wiki is just a warehouse of information, but other than an encyclopedia or dictionary, it has very little policing or ownership responsibility.

Plus, they want you to hone your investigative skills........

When I've written papers, I've felt using Wiki as a reference was just plan lazy, and I didn't learn much.......... in other words, I felt like an unskilled worker. But I have used WIKI's sources, which made me put in an effect and I actually gain something.

An example, if your researching, when you come across something right away like you do with WIKI..... you just gain a very limited point of knowledge.

But when you research something where you come across a number of items to get to your goal, you pick up a lot of tangent information on other subjects.

"How many time have you said, I read somewhere that .........." and it was something that you pick up looking for something else. And there are times that while researching, I'll find an article that at times has nothing to do what so ever with the topic I'm researching for, and end up getting quite involved in reading. You learn......

It's probably because college professors are the ones inputting most of the drivel content (the 5%) on Wikipedia. Never trust someone who can't be fired.

Tenure.....

The last three paragraphs from my post has the largest points.

How it was told us is that anyone can access a subject in Wiki and alter the information.

So I have main source book and I add something to Wiki on a particular subject and list my reference below.

The statement I make is an interpretation of what I read, or maybe I wrote what I wanted too and gambling that no one will check my source. Maybe the source I used isn't a credible source either.

I thought there was someone who verified the information and if it wasn't valid, they would delete it. If this is true, then who are the watchdogs and how accurate is the info?

Wiki gives you a place to start a research. For the most part much of it is valid information, however if the content is of a controversial nature, it is subjected to the belief systems of whoever manages the site.

If you choose to use Wiki as a reference, just list another reference that is credible along with it as support. That is my recommendation.

what is wrong with earning their grade.........

Remember, they can teach a monkey to be an astronaut, but he's still a monkey.

^{(I told that to a pseudo electrical engineer, he was't smart enough to realize I just called him a monkey)}

There may be a new term on the horizon....... WIKI-Engineers.

Engineer 1: Where did you go to school?

Pseudo Engineer 2: the 'University of Wikipedia'.

Engineer 1: Really, do they have a football team?

Pseudo Engineer 2: Yes they do, actually I played.

Engineer 1: Really, what position?

Pseudo Engineer 2: 3^rd Trombone!

I think that this group has some of the smartest posters, so I wanted to get some feedback from you and how you use Wiki as a research tool. I've learned a lot from you guys and I appreciate your openness and candor.

There are a few more reasons why I asked this question. One that has bugged me for a while - quite a while, so here goes.

At our town council meeting, a concern arose about sludge being accepted by the landfill (the agreement with the county states no sludge, period). The landfill got caught taking in sludge and of course they defended themselves by downplaying the sludge as merely waste from a drinking water treatment plant (water from the mountains is filtered and the byproduct was taken to the landfill). Someone looked up the term sludge on Wikipedia (at the meeting) and began reading the definition. A Board member quickly admonished the speaker on the unreliability of Wiki.

I found it interesting that our civic leaders find Wiki a poor source of information and frown upon it's use. And note that most of these civic leaders are in upper management or are successful business owners.

I'd side with the board member here.

A Wiki definition of anything would never be allowed in a court of law, as credible evidence, if this went to litigation.

The WIKI definition of sludge is rather pathetic. Sludge is any particulate matter that settles to the bottom of a body of water. Then you define which type of sludge that is being discussed. All river beds have sludge, all ponds and lakes have sludge, storm water settling ponds have to be cleaned regularly of collected sludge Etc etc.

As a certified water and waste water treatment plant operator for nearly 20 years tells me this.

I am sure though if anyone researched the reference material this would be found. But who bothers? Most don't want to be confused with the truth or facts.

PS Most sludge makes great soil ammendment material.

Wiki is us. If the sludge definition can be explained better, what are you waiting for? People are working on wikipedia every day and that is what makes it better every day.

I see it this way - permanently under construction, to the better. Though many other definitions are written very well. No printed encyclopedia can do better. The no-sense stuff will disappear automatically.

People are working on wikipedia every day and that is what makes it better every day.

Better?, that can be subjective statement. I would like to see standards applied to it. Otherwise the information can change as to the winds of current fads or topics or just for the sake of being politically correct. That is WIKI's weakness.

You have to have a definition of sludge from Wikipedia in a town council meeting to know what sludge is? Actually, to dispose of anything in a landfill other than household garbage, one has to run extensive tests on it at an accredited and certified environmental laboratory. The tests determine (1) is the sludge (solid waste) an EPA hazardous waste?, (2) does the sludge present any metals that are not allowed in a Class II (in Texas) landfill? The test is typically referred to as the TCLP test. Just because it looks like dirt, does not mean it is dirt for the purposes of environmental compliance.

James, you have to remember that the town council is not expected to be experts in all matters. The landfill downplayed their part in this, ie the sludge came from a drinking water treatment plant. The town council got stuck on the definition of sludge - is it something that the community needs to be concerned about.

The landfill is a class III landfill in CA. Class III allows sludge, however the county approved the use permit, with the restriction on accepting zero sludge. The landfill claimed that the sludge they took in was no different than the silt that forms at the bottom of a wash. One of the residents looked up sludge on Wiki (at the meeting) and you know the rest.

FYI, the landfill admitted to their error and agreed to not take in any sludge. The county did not fine them for the infraction, but it is on public record. The landfill did collect $165K for the sludge they took in - quite a bit of money for something they claim as a "safe" waste product. Later, I met with the manager of the landfill and he told me that the sludge should have been a non-issue. I did find out that it wasn't only the silty material, but included spent filters (activated carbon as well). My other concern is why couldn't they dump the silty material back into the area where they took the mountain spring water?

If it is waste of any kind, it has to be characterized, and approved, probably not anywhere near where the water is from.

Months ago I mentioned 'thrivemovement.com' and asked for opinion after viewing, and was disappointed when told by multiple members that wiki, google and others called it 'conspiracy theory' and thus they would not view it, as it was a waste of time. Since then there have been multiple posts of topics on CR4 discussed at length at thrive with references to source. Yes, I think too much reliance is placed on wiki and google when searching for information.

Months ago I mentioned 'thrivemovement.com' and asked for opinion after viewing, and was disappointed when told by multiple members that wiki, google and others called it 'conspiracy theory' and thus they would not view it, as it was a waste of time.

Your own original doubts about information posted on 'thrivemovement.com' were correct as far as I am concerned and I didn't need to check Wikipedia before posting my answer to your original question (calling it a pseudoscience website).

I went straight to the source to make an educated judgement rather than relying on second or third hand information, which is the whole point. Nothing beats finding the original source (or as close as you can).

Sure, the information could have been traced back even further (possibly as far back as the original source material and eye witnesses, etc given enough time and effort) but at some point in time you have to say 'this level of source material answers my question with a high enough reliability to satisfy me'.

Wiki and internet searches are just (great) tools after all, they can answer a question but it is up to the individual to figure out if the answer is correct or not. They will give you an answer, but it may not necessarily be right (especially in the case of internet searches).

Sure, there is some pseudo science, but the main point of military/industrial/banking having taken over our electoral process, the control of medical by the FDA, the control of crop and plants by companies like Monsanto, I thought were valid points that we all should be paying attention to. There are people in high places that are fu**ing up our world, and I applaud Foster Gambel for pointing it out. The removal of his video from search engines is suppression. Knowledge is NOT dangerous. Being spoon fed CR4P by the politicians is.

Yes, but web sites, AM radio station programs, secret newspapers, etc. use hyper-sensitive issues to their benefit by sensationalizing the "issues" they present.

Most of the fodder is not fact or science based in the least. With regard to Thrive (which literally appears to thrive on conspiracy theories), I take the article on Snowden as an example...

The public wants to believe, Mulder style, that The Government is running all kinds of scams and invasion of privacy operations on the general (domestic) public, and that it even extends to foreign shores of so-called friendly countries.

But...

The public stops short of believing what can only be as fact based as a post-incident investigation can be because they are absolutely sure that it's just another gov't run mission in an attempt to, oh, I don't know, get more oil to prop up the petro-dollar.

(As if any American who even owns a car, uses electricity, eats food and has petro-dollars in their bank account to begin with...yeah...right.)

Nevermind the further fact that Snowden signed a non-disclosure agreement and swore to that (also), but we'll trust the information he provides. So, he's a liar and a thief, but we can trust the information he provides--without a doubt.

Right...

Really? A non-disclosure agreement, and swore to it?

Who would you rather believe. A civilian liar and thief or a government liar and thief?

Those are our only two options here.

Methinks thee are being naive.

Lyn, I am retired military and now a civil servant. I was a government contractor for three years after I retired before I landed the civil service job.

Having to work around classified material, I was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, get read-in/read-out for/from each and every command/duty station as a military member, civilian contractor, and DoD civil servant.

Every military, civilian, and contractor has to go through the same thing.

We sign the documents which includes an oath. Both military and civil service personnel are required to further raise their right hand and swear to the oath, out loud, to the reciting officer.

If the human race gets to the point that one cannot trust an individual when they swear out an oath or sign a document then the very fabric of the world society is falling apart, and anarchy will soon be upon us. No courts, no rule, no law.

Fighting that type of degradation in America is among the many reasons why I served my country in the military for 20 years and I continue my service today.

I take great umbrage when the common citizen, whether they have any idea about the facts or not, automatically assumes that just because an individual works for the government that they are all part of some "Military-Industrial Complex" conspiracy, and probably fat, lazy, and stupid. That's not a personal attack on you. I realize this is a free-speaking forum and I respect your position. Now you know mine.

Excusing a suspected felon and possible traitor to his own country who is on the run in Russia with God knows what kind of information is, in my book, inane.

The U.S. government has a very good idea of the damage that Snowden (in this case) can do with the information he has. Non-repudiation in the information assurance age can be a beautiful thing.

The public does not know the entire story about Manning and Snowden and they cannot, because if you let the public know everything the enemy will soon be at your door, having used that information which they refer to as "intelligence". Intelligence just handed to a foreign power without resorting to spy-craft is what they dream of.

The public doesn't even know the whole truth about the Walker spy ring, Hanssen, Ames, and any number of other spies. Lifetime specials, NBC special reports, or Hollywood biopics don't even come close to the whole truth. They are dramatizations and are made for entertainment.

It's part of my job to not be naïve, and it is frustrating as Hell to not be able to just explain the whole story to people.

I sit and listen to conjecture in public; I listen to the talking heads on television (they used to be called reporters and they dealt in fact), and I read forums all over the internet. I cannot comment, I cannot set the record straight, I cannot share, I cannot divulge, I...just...cannot.

I swore an oath.

Cuba Pete

Thank You for your service, It's been a long long time since I served, but if I had it to do over I probably would have made a career of it. They were good days and had a distinct purpose.

These conspiracy theorists are Looney Toons What is real and always will be there will never be enough people even with artificial intellegence to keep up with all human personal communications, Connections .. maybe!

Have a great day.

Thanks for the kind words.

Conspiracy theorists are a dime a dozen and therefore overpaid.

The real world is interesting enough without resorting to wild conjecture.

I think that the public is astounded when they find out what they didn't know and then try to correlate that with what they do know. It's what they still don't know which would make sense of those matters.

It is unfortunate for those who serve in the defense of America that there must be secrets. If the American public is informed of all methods, practices, and results the real enemies will also have that information.

Times haven't changed that much. America is constantly under attack from someone...somewhere, in ever-increasingly new and ingenious ways.

Not everything appears in the news. Sometimes...I just wish it would. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Bob, do you hear those helicopters outside? Of course not, they're special stealth models, right. And I always wondered why nobody could see them during the day? Maybe stealth paint?

Until Zero Dark Thirty came out the stealth helicopter was only part of the American veil of conspiracy so many chatter about.

I used to watch those helicopters do training runs through the woods near my home. At the time I used to feel pretty smug, being able to see what others did not, and felt great peace in knowing that America has the right tools for any job.

We use them to get hard jobs done.

So shines a good deed in a weary world...

Thanks for easing my mind, Bob.

Here's what's going on in Raleigh.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/15/3109412/nc-state-teams-up-with-nsa-on.html

This is on top of the Fusion Centers that are run by DHS.

http://publicintelligence.net/fusion-centers/

And all of this from an administration that refuses to shut down the southern border, while it looks like Al Qaeda is opening up franchise opportunities in South America.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/04/04/Report-Al-Qaida-active-in-Latin-Americas-Triple-Frontier/UPI-87711301952723/

It's also nice to know that the fast & furious gun running operation never happened, and that all of the murdered people are still alive.

I was also beginning to believe that the IRS was stifling the free speech of conservative groups, in the months leading up to the last election...asking for lists of associates, content of prayers, etc.

I'm feeling much better now.

Thank you all for voicing your opinion. If we tally the results, I see the following:

1. Many use Wiki as a starting point, but be sure to check the references.

2. Don't use Wiki for political or opinionated topics.

3. Wiki may have incorrect information, so beware.

4. Wiki is not good for very specific scientific information.

5. Wiki is a moving target. People are adding/correcting information all the time.

6. If #5 is true, then logically the "old" information was wrong and the "new" is correct. If you used the "old", then you made a mistake.

7. There is a moderator who allows corrections on Wiki. The bias of the moderator must be taken into account.

Thanks again and I appreciate the time you took responding to the question.

Actually I happen to live very close to Camp Lejeune NC so yes I do hear the helicopters and the props of the Ospreys. Our tax dollars at work! Training the people who are in the business of protecting this Nation.

However, I do use WIKI as a quick reference, if I need further, and more detailed information, I usually can refer to the references provided, or find my own further down the list on the search engine lists.

I do not form opinions from WIKI alone but a consensus of fact finding.

As I said above, the definition of SLUDGE was weak to say the least and only referred to one possible source of sludge, not what what sludge actually is/was.