Wikipedia seems to much maligned for its easy editing and possibility of hoaxes, vandalism, and other types of sabotage. But this misses the entire point of wiki: it is an encyclopedia! So today I want to talk about its usefulness in regards to scholarship, and what its actual problems are. We're going to talk about source mining, tertiary sources, and common knowledge principles in regards to the history profession.
------------------------------------------------------------
References:
nothing to cite, but here are some wiki links about that explain some of this stuff more thoroughly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandali...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
Support the channel through Patreon:
/ cynicalhistorian
LET'S CONNECT:
/ cynicalcypher88
/ cynical_history
------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia with the aim to allow anyone to edit articles.[3] Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet,[4][5][6] and is ranked the fifth-most popular website.[7] Wikipedia is owned by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation.[8][9][10]
Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.[11] Sanger coined its name,[12][13] a portmanteau of wiki[notes 4] and encyclopedia. There was only the English-language version initially, but similar versions in other languages quickly developed, which differ in content and in editing practices. With 5,501,673 articles,[notes 5] the English Wikipedia is the largest of the more than 290 Wikipedia encyclopedias. Overall, Wikipedia comprises more than 40 million articles in 299 different languages[15] and, as of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.[16]
As of March 2017, Wikipedia has about 40,000 high-quality articles, known as Featured Articles and Good Articles, that cover vital topics.[17][18] In 2005, Nature published a peer review comparing 42 science articles from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia, and found that Wikipedia's level of accuracy approached that of Encyclopædia Britannica.[19]
Wikipedia has been criticized for allegedly exhibiting systemic bias, presenting a mixture of "truths, half truths, and some falsehoods",[20] and, in controversial topics, being subject to manipulation and spin.[21]
------------------------------------------------------------
Hashtags: #Wikipedia #SourceMining #CommonKnowledge #History
Информация по комментариям в разработке