VOTE... ATS Policy of NO Wikipedia Sources permited on ATS ( yes or no )

Yes Wiki sources.

Wikipedia has a large list of citations and references at the bottom that you can check to verify.

The myth that anyone can edit wiki is a lie. You can edit it, but they have staff that monitor every edit. Most false information is removed quite quickly.

So I say yes. Everyone is a grown up capable of checking the references below.

Too extreme a choice either way.

If i wanted to show you how something worked, like analogue to digital conversion of how transduction works, it might be slightly easier to show you a WIKI page, since the information there is generally in an easier to digest format.

en.wikipedia.org...

An analog-to-digital converter (abbreviated ADC, A/D or A to D) is a device which converts a continuous quantity to a discrete time digital representation. An ADC may also provide an isolated measurement. The reverse operation is performed by a digital-to-analog converter (DAC).
Typically, an ADC is an electronic device that converts an input analog voltage or current to a digital number proportional to the magnitude of the voltage or current. However, some non-electronic or only partially electronic devices, such as rotary encoders, can also be considered ADCs.
The digital output may use different coding schemes. Typically the digital output will be a two's complement binary number that is proportional to the input, but there are other possibilities. An encoder, for example, might output a Gray code.

^^ Y'see , this is provable. This is evidence and has been tried and tested a million times.

But then again....

Nothing on Wiki is 100% solid, and it's easily manipulated, what if i linked to 9/11?

en.wikipedia.org...

On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[2][3] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both towers collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C., to target either the Capitol Building or the White House.

^^ This information is not proven and is subject to much, much debate.

Thus using wiki as a guideline to opinion won't work. But for easy access to data, then sure.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Too extreme a choice either way.

Nothing on Wiki is 100% solid, and it's easily manipulated, what if i linked to 9/11?

en.wikipedia.org...

On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[2][3] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both towers collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C., to target either the Capitol Building or the White House.

^^ This information is not proven and is subject to much, much debate.

Thus using wiki as a guideline to opinion won't work. But for easy access to data, then sure.

Ok well what source could you give that proves the events of 9/11 that will trump wiki?

Originally posted by Serafine
Just read through a brilliant Thread by AnteBellum .. here ----> www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a simple vote and as pointed out in the OP of that Thread, is Wikipedia a reliable source for ATS posts? A Yes or No Vote will do for some sort of ATS member Ethnographic whatnot...

Should ATS have a NO Wiki Sources policy?

vote is either... No wiki sources or Yes wiki sources

Serafine Vote = NO WIKI SOURCES

who died and made u king of ats lolol

A BIG yes from me.

Many wiki articles manage to lay out some very complicated issues in plain and simple language which makes it esy to understand. They therfore enable you to learn some basics on a subject which provides the foundation of understanding required for further research.

There is a lot of rubish there too, but there is on a hundred other sirtes which get quoted here each day. What abour youtube, as already mentioned? At least we know with wiki that there is a good chance the information is reasonable. And we always have the chance to use other sites to back up or debunk what is being posted from there.

reply to post by Serafine


If NO WIKI SOURCES then NO FUZZY, UNVERIFIABLE PHOTOS OF "UFO'S", GHOSTS, ETC., NO "I THINK, I FEEL, OR SEEMS TO ME" types of conclusions.

OK?

Yes or no, doesn't matter. All that matters is that the site be T&C compatible. It is. I use Wiki for an overall view of a topic. Then I look for specifics elsewhere.

Why in the world would wikipedia be banned from a site where most of the references are youtube videos and random blogs. I mean is there a certain standard one must be below to be a reliable source?

Seriously, Wikipedia cites it's source and the articles have a discussion page where you can read dissents from those that disagree about certain parts. Sure it's not always 100% accurate, but it's a far more reliable source than many other things cited on ATS.

So, of course yes, Wikipedia should be allowed.

Yes...

With a grain of salt.

Wiki in my opinion is good for a quick reference and to learn the basic premise of a discussion or topic etc but not to be used as a 100% reliable source for a debate. As has already been pointed out there are too many quirky inconsistencies and inaccurate claims made on their site. Oftentimes rival groups will post conflicting information as fact opposing what they disagree with etc.

If one wishes to use Wiki as a source it should be supported with other forms of evidence and links.

Absolutely not.

If you see something on wikipedia page that you want to reference, look at what that wiki page references as its source for that content, then reference that source, if it is legitimate.

Not very hard.

In addition, it is not acceptable to quote a site like wikipedia or yahoo answers for an academic paper, or even for the agents of the texting service kgbkgb. It is expected to find legitimate sources of information.

If you find information on wikipedia, it should have a citation number next to it, it will look like this [1]
Click on the citation and it will show you the source of the content, simply reference that source instead of the wikipedia page. You'll also probably find out more information from that reference anyways.

reply to post by Serafine


ill try to find site otyher than wiki, but some of the ones i find seem almost even less reliable than it, so in that case ill use wiki
so ill say yes if all other sources seem less reliable than it

Yes.

Not trying to urinate in anyone's breakfast cereal with this comment, but it comes down to the intelligence of the person using Wikipedia as a resource. If you're using an article from Wikipedia that has zero citations and/or has an obvious POV as the basis for your argument, you deserve some good-natured ridicule. However, if the Wikipedia article has a good set of citations upon which it is based with a solidly neutral POV, why wouldn't you want to use it as a resource?

I vote YES WIKI, though you should always have more than a wikipedia source to validate your claims.

Its lazy but I say Yes use WiKi material where it adds to the background information. Most WiKi articles have lots of searchable keywords that can be used for further research. Some WiKi articles are even left open to interpretation. I'm not sure if the WiKi detractors wish us to leave our ATS responses more open, or thoroughly debunked?

reply to post by Serafine


Yes Wikipedia should be allowed. No, its not 1000% problem free or accurate, but what it? The propaganda machine? Text books that are also often written in an edited or skewed fashion? Why pick on Wikipedia when the simple fact is, any source of information has the potential to be wrong.

Even peer reviewed papers published in journals can come to conclusions that turn out to be wrong. How about instead of banning sources, people just learn to double check other sources on their own rather than just accept information presented to them as if it were the be all and end all of argument?

Thats the real problem. Not the reliability or lack thereof of Wikipedia. The fact that people just want one person or source to tell them what to believe so they dont have to look for other opinions, consider all the sources on their own, and them case build for and defend their own position.

People are intellectually lazy. No "source" is going to change that.

Originally posted by smokeythabear
I vote YES WIKI, though you should always have more than a wikipedia source to validate your claims.

I disagree. If you choose to use Wikipedia as your source the OTHER person claiming Wikipedia "sucks" should bear the burden of coming in with something credible to refute Wikipedia. These arent dissertations. Hell, most of what is posted here on ATS is completely unsupported opinion, and even Wikipedia is too much for the majority of posters, who look NOTHING up. Half the people on this website dont even click the links in the OP and read the whole article.

One of the things that bothers me about ATS argumentation is that people think "haha you used x source" is an argument. Its not. Its some moron mashing keys. Even the most horrible source on the planet COULD have it right. If you really want to argue someone elses point is invalid, bring something to the table yourself, build a counter case for YOUR point of view.

reply to post by Serafine


Did you read Antebellums thread?
If yes, why your making another?
I pretty confident you dont. Since you pretty much started the thread and ran away.
In my word its called trolling.

Seriously to all the FB new faces around here, you need to READ and search in order to Deny Ignorance
not just post your thoughts.

reply to post by Serafine


There are way way worse sources used here.
Wiki is a good site most of it is legit and the references at the pages bottom are very valuable.

I'd rather not see prison planet or those wacky news sites that publish sorcha faal before taking away wiki.

Personaly , I do not see what the problem with Wikipedia is. If a person has all the information they need, but want a succinct and speedily available chunk of data for posting purposes, then why not use Wiki?

The fact is that Wiki is no more or less reliable than ANY non government or not for profit source. People constantly post up guff from independant websites, many of which contain little to NO verifiable data. Wiki at least has a large proportion of easily available facts, which CAN be independantly verified.

The important thing to do , is to ensure that any information which is contained in a Wiki page, is at the least accurate, and in order to do that, there are two things to do. First (and this does require a bit of honesty and also a small amount of intelligence and general knowledge), check whats on the page, against what you know. Alternatively , if you know nothing, and are not afraid to admit it, then instead check the facts against other sources.

The advantage with Wiki, is that no one at Wiki gives a god damn what gets done with the information, by whom, or where. Other sites and sources however, can be slightly testy about copyright and so on. Narcs.

The thing is, if Wiki is out, then so is anything the MSM have ever produced,so no posting from the BBC, NBC, Fox News, or any other damned source. Please tell me, where can I find facts without ANY hope of them being falsified, inaccurate, biased or anything else? No where is the answer.

In a choice between using Wiki, and banning any questionable material from the site all together, I would take Wiki all the way. Without Wiki, and other sources which have similar questions asked about them, this site itself would more than likely cease to exist in its current , glorious format. Fact is, that alot of the stuff on this site is FAR more outrageously distanced from fact, than anything one will find on Wiki.

My two pence. Yes to allowing data from Wiki.
TB

The problem I have is people don't use Wiki properly.

Use wiki as a source and then check out the references at the bottom of the page as to where they get their information. That is how you should use wiki, that is how I use it.

I am not allowed to use wiki for school however, it is not considered a reliable source so I use ATS


I don't think there should be a ban on wiki as a source here because not all of wiki is wrong and incorrect. I use wiki many times esp after I check the information out if I feel it's questionable.


So my vote is no wiki is just fine if people use it right.