Wikipedia.org

[RodB]

I'm wondering what others on this forum think of wikipedia as a way of storing information relating to WWI ? I added a bit to my grandad's division's page but I wonder whether others consider wikipedia worthwhile, or whether it justs serves as a repository of stuff pirated from books others put so much effort into ?

[Chris_Baker]

I wish I had a pound for every word that has been stolen from my website to be added to wikipedia. I could retire.

[truthergw]

I'm wondering what others on this forum think of wikipedia as a way of storing information relating to WWI ? I added a bit to my grandad's division's page but I wonder whether others consider wikipedia worthwhile, or whether it justs serves as a repository of stuff pirated from books others put so much effort into ?

There is absolutely no guarantee that wikipedia is correct. So, quite apart from how the content gets there in the first place, it is about as trustworthy as ' the bloke down the pub'.

[Borden Battery]

Hello RodB

At present I have a mixed opinion about Wikipedia and "Wiki" websites in general. In favour of Wikipedia, there is an established format from which a number of individuals can collaborate, research and present information. Speaking against Wikipedia, there does not appear to be any uniform ability to provide a "peer review" of the information and statistics which makes some of the content suspect. On some sites I have seen two factions battling for control of the topic. As noted above, some people are concerned about where the source material is acquired and copyright implications.

Here is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History wiki site which includes most likely a librarian's organizational format to the topic area which appeals to me. On the Canadian military history section there are even a couple of contributors whom I am aware of and do good work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...ory#Departments

Will Wikipedia mature - not sure. I also understand one of the founders has also left to establish a similar format but with more content control.

Regards

Borden Battery

[saberhagen427]

It's important to make a distinction between the (in?)famous Wikipedia site, and the Wiki software that it runs on. The Wiki software itself is very powerful and flexible, and there's no reason why it has to be used in exactly the way that Wikipedia uses it. It's possible to have tighter controls over editing and more rigourous peer review. It's been said in at least one or two other threads that a wiki (or several wikis) would be a very good way to bring together a lot of the specialised knowledge of GWF members.

[Mark Hone]

Try persuading what now seems like the majority of A-Level History Personal Study candidates that Wikipedia isn't Holy Writ.

[AndyHollinger]

My take is Wikipedia is a good place to start. Think of it as an easy and popular framework that can often give you the lay of the land. IF you see errors, fix it up ... it's easy. Most of the errors that are blatant and caused by vandalism are pretty easy to spot.

It is an excellent teaching point about credibility of sources though ...

As in most things ... we all must learn to doubt and ponder what we read on the Inet.