Wikipedia is a great resource

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sometimes you can find stories that are just so weird, you wonder if they could show up in a DnD or D20 Modern game.

So, presenting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

The Battle of Karánsebes took place on the evening of 17 September 1788, between different portions of an Austrian army which was supposed to be fighting the Ottoman Empire.

And also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_Murder_Incident

The engineering team was accompanied by a 30 man security platoon armed with pistols and axe handles. In addition, a 64 man ROK special forces team accompanied them, armed with clubs and trained in Tae Kwon Do.

(That last one sounded a bit funnier before the edit. )

 

[Nyaricus]

Prech it man, Wikipedia is great for obscuro-crap, which is stuff I am so into

Trenpanning (sp?) - all the COOL KIDS are doing it

 

[BOZ]

it's a great resource indeed, and when it's actually halfway accurate, it's even better!

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

it's a great resource indeed, and when it's actually halfway accurate, it's even better!

The great thing about Wikipedia, of course, is that an eighth grade science student can "edit" an article by Richard Dawkins.

I view Wikipedia as the cyber equivalent of a bunch of guys ting in a bar. Lots of fun, and potentially quite interesting, but nothing you'd want to quote in a research report.

 

[Johnnie Freedom!]

The great thing about Wikipedia, of course, is that an eighth grade science student can "edit" an article by Richard Dawkins.

I view Wikipedia as the cyber equivalent of a bunch of guys ting in a bar. Lots of fun, and potentially quite interesting, but nothing you'd want to quote in a research report.

As a purely intellectual exercise, I have, in the past, edited many wikipedia articles to say things that are clearly false. (World War II began in 1929, etc.) Then I monitered the said articles for several weeks to see how long it would take the "wikipedians" to catch and amend the errors. Sadly, none of the errors were ever caught. It just proved to me that you can't trust a damn thing you read on wikipedia, even though much of it is damn fun to read.

 

[Hellefire]

wikipedia

I do actually use Wikipedia for research projects. Partly because of the insanity that is APA. For example - My mom's eyes are blue (Alaska DMV, 2006). I get asked for an opinion paper, and asked for support to back up my opinion. OK, if I am quoting things as facts, fine, even though I've worked in the field for almost 20 years (the red wire goes on the power side). Bu when asked for my opinion, then asked to quote other people with the same opinion...it gets a bit monotonous.

Aaron

 

[Staffan]

nothing you'd want to quote in a research report.

It's a good place to start though. Most wikipedia articles contain a list of references, and they usually give a good enough overview to let you know if you're on the right track.

 

[Nyaricus]

It's a good place to start though. Most wikipedia articles contain a list of references, and they usually give a good enough overview to let you know if you're on the right track.

True that; oftentimes the sites they link up are incrediably interesting.

I also find myself continually going from one topic to another. For example, I went from Strapping Young Lad to Canadian Metal Bands, to Voivod, to Cyberpunk to Bladerunner last night, just crusing aroound on it. How many other sites can do that? Not many, IMO, which is really awesome

 

[Varianor Abroad]

It's a good place to start though. Most wikipedia articles contain a list of references, and they usually give a good enough overview to let you know if you're on the right track.

Exactly.

Also, how is deliberately falsifying data in articles without notifying Wikipedia helpful to anyone?

 

[Dire Bare]

As a purely intellectual exercise, I have, in the past, edited many wikipedia articles to say things that are clearly false. (World War II began in 1929, etc.) Then I monitered the said articles for several weeks to see how long it would take the "wikipedians" to catch and amend the errors. Sadly, none of the errors were ever caught. It just proved to me that you can't trust a damn thing you read on wikipedia, even though much of it is damn fun to read.

Yes, you can't always trust the data you find on Wikipedia . . . thanks to swell guys like you . . .