Wikipedia

[Demesnedenoir]

I’m on Wikipedia, therefore I am... LMAO.

Actually, what I found interesting is that the Wikipedia entry immediately hit the top of the search for “L. James Rice”. Behold the power of of the Wiki... just don’t trust it to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[S.T. Ockenner]

Yes, Wikipedia is sometimes wrong. But, it can be correct, just don't use it unless it's a last resort.

 

[skip.knox]

I would always tell my students that Wikipedia is a great place to start and a bad place to stop. At least for academic work. For my fiction research, I stop exactly where I please.

 

[S.T. Ockenner]

My mom says that I shouldn't use Wikipedia at all, but I do anyway (albeit only for fun).

 

[Prince of Spires]

It really depends on the type of topic. For sciency-stuff, wikipedia is often found to be at least as reliable as traditional encyclopedias, and often even more so. They tend to get these kinds of facts right. For popular culture stuff, not so much. Part is because right and wrong is more difficult to discern and there's a lot more misinformation out there regarding popular culture stuff.

But also, fewer people probably know about or care about the second law of thermodynamics than about the Kardashians. And those who do will more likely be more sciency-people. So there's a smaller chance that people will try to change an article about the second law of thermodynamics to fit there opinion than about the Kardashians (though, for the record, the second law of thermodynamics rocks!).

I find that Wikipedia is a great source of information for a lot of topics. Especially as a starting point in a search.

 

[CupofJoe]

Isn't one of the Wikipedia rules, that you can't edit your own page/ a page about you? You are not deemed a reliable source for your own information. Now in my case that is eminently sensible... I would hate the "truth" of my life story to come out. The Fantasy version is far more interesting...

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Not exactly, no. If you state facts and back them up with references, it works. For instance, my being married with 2 kids was pulled until it was referenced to my official website, and something else was “weak” until referenced to a local newspaper article about me. So, if you’re capable of writing an objective fact-filled article about yourself, you’re okay, but the article will get tagged as major contributor possibly having a personal connection to the topic. The BIG issue from what I understand is being “Notable” enough to qualify for Wikipedia.

As with wife and kids above, facts aren’t adequate, they need to be backed up. Spouse and kids and upcoming books needs basic proof, but I assume if you claim a Nobel prize you better have more than a reference to your own website saying you won one.

Honestly, I just happened across an author on there and said, huh. So, as a lark, I went ahead and made one. With a newspaper article, contest wins and medals, and other other web presence such as an editor’s pick review at Booklife, I figured I had more Wiki cred than several other authors with articles on them. I figured it was 50/50 because I made NO BONES that the creator was the topic with potential bias, but at the same time, figured it would be fun either way, LOL.

It’s also fun because then the article was an “orphan” until connecting to another article. So, one it got connected to was “fantasy” authors, so I end up right next to Anne Rice in one list. And close to Rothfuss. It’s a little like the strange pleasure of seeing your book and name next to others on a store or library shelf. Or the time Eve of Snows was surrounded by Martin and Gaiman on one Amazon best seller list. Oh, it means nothing! But it looks cool.

Isn't one of the Wikipedia rules, that you can't edit your own page/ a page about you? You are not deemed a reliable source for your own information. Now in my case that is eminently sensible... I would hate the "truth" of my life story to come out. The Fantasy version is far more interesting...