[1+1=2]
OneAndOneIs2

Wed, Aug 22, 2007

[Link][Icon]When I first found Wikipedia worthwhile

I was very slow to appreciate Wikipedia. All too often in its early days, when its fans were everywhere, proselyting to the masses, I would look up something I knew a fair amount about, only to find the entry lacking in quality, quantity, or neutrality. I gave up on it as a bad job - unlike open software, the open encyclopedia concept didn't seem to result in high-quality work. As somebody or other in the media said: Open-source code doesn't just have to be written: it has to compile and run; on wikipedia, all you have to do is write it and you're done.

So I tended not to bother with it.

The reason I mention this today is that we got new sofas delivered this morning.

I do great links, don't I? [Smiley]

Because we were expecting new sofas today, we threw the old ones out at the weekend. For the last couple days I've been unable to sit and read, therefore, as we've had no comfy chairs.

Now that we have sofas again, I've naturally had to test them out by sitting around and reading all afternoon. So I ran out of library books to read and had to fall back on my not-exactly-small personal collection. In the clearout that moving furniture around always seems to result in, I found one of the few Star Wars books I own.

Despite owning all the movies (Originals and remastered in the case of IV - VI) I've never been a huge fan of many books. I've read a lot, but not liked them enough to buy.

Revenge of the Sith is one of the exceptions. Not only because it doesn't suffer from the wooden acting making the plot hard to believe, but because Matthew Stover did a damn good job of writing. Just reading the introduction is enough to get the adrenalin going.

And when it gets onto the lightsaber fight between Dooku and the Jedi, it really starts to come into its own. The battle lasts about ten times longer than in the film, and there's a huge amount more background information about it. Not least of which is how they manage to go from Dooku having it all his own way at the start, to it becoming a battle for his life. Which he loses.

Simply put, the two of them use forms of lightsaber combat which they aren't all that skilled at, to make Dooku overconfident. Then they switch abruptly to the forms which they aren't just good at, but are Masters of. Hence the sudden turning of the tide...

If you're not a real SW geek, your reaction will probably be "Lightsaber forms? What do you mean, lightsaber forms?"

And THAT'S where Wikipedia comes into its own. The first time I found Wikipedia useful, exhaustively detailed, and highly accurate was when I was bored enough to look up details of lightsaber combat.

Pointless trivia, you might say, of interest only to geeks who dress up in silly costumes and queue for weeks to get cinema tickets. And you might be right, but still, it's interesting trivia.

And then I started looking up all kinds of OTHER entries about works of fiction. The Matrix. Transformers. Boneyard. Green Wing. etc. etc. Vast quantities of top-notch information. And finally, I admitted that Wikipedia COULD be a useful resource.

I even made a few edits to a couple of articles, something I had never bothered with before because there didn't seem to be any point. I even created the entry for one of my favourite childhood comic characters, The Comet, and made quite a few edits to the Boneyard entry - both somewhat obscure, but still worthwhile IMHO, titles.

Since then, Wikipedia has gone on to become the second engine in my Firefox search bar. There are a number of things I wouldn't like to rely on it as a source of information for, but when you're after less-contentious information, or willing to use standard research practices whilst gathering more 'serious' information, it's a really useful resource.

Still doesn't come even close to edging Google out of the number one slot tho... [Smiley]

6 comments • Categories: Omni, Technology, My Life

Comments:

Comment from: hari [Member] Email · http://hari.literaryforums.org
Look, you can never judge Wikipedia as a whole -- only by individual articles, because it *is* not a single site but a collection of articles each differing in quality and written by people of varying knowledge and expertise levels.

I've seen a lot of well-written articles and I've seen some crap too. I've seen articles edited frequently and I've seen some articles sit around for ages without being updated.

It all depends on what subject the article deals with and the community interest in that area of focus. For instance, technology topics seem to have a high level of attention and quality-wise they're quite good too. On the other hand, obscure regional topics tend to receive very little attention and quality control. Even mainstream historical topics are reasonably good, but you might find some mistakes there as well. On the whole, you can never say which article would help you and which wouldn't.

So you cannot collectively call Wikipedia either "good' or "bad." It's a resource that can be used by everybody and that's all that matters.
PermalinkPermalink 23/08/07 @ 03:16
Comment from: oneandoneis2 [Member] · http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/
>So you cannot collectively call Wikipedia either "good' or "bad."

True. But you CAN call it "worthwhile" or otherwise. In its earlier days, I found it not even worth bothering with: If I wanted to know about something, Wikipedia never even crossed my maind as a place to look.

These days, it does. It's very useful, so long as you know and accept its limitations.
PermalinkPermalink 23/08/07 @ 14:57
Comment from: hari [Member] Email · http://hari.literaryforums.org
I found that it depends a lot on the sub-communities within Wikipedia which are dedicated to different topics and how active they are...

Sometimes the quality is like that written by a Ph.D. Professor, sometimes it's worse than kindergarten level...
PermalinkPermalink 23/08/07 @ 16:18
Comment from: Genevieve [Visitor] Email · http://iamgenevieve.wordpress.com
I love Wikipedia; it really helped me in my first year of Philosophy because the articles on things like Theory of Knowledge are very good.

If you look up Shakespeare's sonnets, though, it's almost amusing how much detail one sonnet has compared to another.

To this day, the articles I've found that have the most detail in them are the ones about Pokemon, although searching for "The Invisible Girl" gives you pages of information too.
PermalinkPermalink 23/08/07 @ 16:47
Comment from: oneandoneis2 [Member] · http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/
I have to confess, those are some searches that it's never occurred to me to try thus far :)
PermalinkPermalink 23/08/07 @ 19:05
Comment from: hari [Member] Email · http://hari.literaryforums.org
Historical articles are good too, particularly those related to "First World" history.
PermalinkPermalink 24/08/07 @ 09:31

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Categories

August 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Search

Misc

XML Feeds

What is this?
eXTReMe Tracker

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Valid CSS!

[Valid RSS feed]

powered by
b2evolution

blank