Support NeoGAF

[Dictator93]

Anyone have a link to the EightBitNated post that keeps being mentioned?

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Anyone have a link to the EightBitNated post that keeps being mentioned?

Enjoy, mon ami:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=776087

 

[Mistel]

Anyone have a link to the EightBitNated post that keeps being mentioned?

It's a whole thread http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=776087

 

[terrisus]

But what if the part of the wikipedia entry being quoted is itself cited from 1 (or several) real source(s)? That's often the case.

Because:
1) That's also often not the case
2) Even with sources, it's subject to however particular people (goodness knows who) decided to phrase it
3) There can be issues with the sources that were chosen versus those that were omitted
4) It's subject to someone misinterpreting something, vandalizing something, or other such factors
5) "Encyclopedias" don't make good "sources," regardless of which "encyclopedia" it is
6) It's just not a good habit to be in

Among other reasons.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Because:
1) That's also often not the case
2) Even with sources, it's subject to however particular people (goodness knows who) decided to phrase it
3) There can be issues with the sources that were chosen versus those that were omitted
4) It's subject to someone misinterpreting something, vandalizing something, or other such factors
5) "Encyclopedias" don't make good "sources," regardless of which "encyclopedia" it is
6) It's just not a good habit to be in

Among other reasons.

1. Do you have any evidence to support this? Anecdotally, it is often the case for me, but I can't prove it one way or the other.
2. If you're concerned about this, then click-through to see the original context. That's why it's there.
3. What does this even mean? This could apply to anything anyone says or references. There are always other sources that could be quoted out there. Or are you saying there's some finite, specific list of resources that must be used because anything outside of that is not trustworthy and shouldn't be used as a citation?
4. See #2
5. For what? A dissertation or a master's thesis, of course you wouldn't use wikipedia for a source. Answering a question on a forum? It's often perfect.

I understand the angle you're coming from since you seem to be an academic, but not everything requires that strict of a standard.

edit: basically, it's always up to the reader to do his/her due diligence on a source posted online and decide if it's trustworthy/valid, whether that's wikipedia or somewhere else on the web

 

[terrisus]

1. Do you have any evidence to support this? Anecdotally, it is often the case for me, but I can't prove it one way or the other.
2. If you're concerned about this, then click-through to see the original context. That's why it's there.
3. What does this even mean? This could apply to anything anyone says or references. There are always other sources that could be quoted out there. Or are you saying there's some finite, specific list of resources that must be used because anything outside of that is not trustworthy and shouldn't be used as a citation?
4. See #2
5. For what? A dissertation or a master's thesis, of course you wouldn't use wikipedia for a source. Answering a question on a forum? It's often perfect.

I understand the angle you're coming from since you seem to be an academic, but not everything requires that strict of a standard.

edit: basically, it's always up to the reader to do his/her due diligence on a source posted online and decide if it's trustworthy/valid, whether that's wikipedia or somewhere else on the web

So basically the argument comes down to "Other sources can have issues too, so why not just use Wikipedia?" and "Well, even if someone does use Wikipedia, people should do their own research?"

I have seen Wikipedia used as a "source" in Master's classes. Granted, just regular classes, not a thesis, but still. Part of the problem is that many people are getting too reliant on this single magical "source" where they can look up anything and get the information they want. And that's a very bad habit to get into.

Basically, though, there are a variety of issues with Wikipedia - which are in turn magnified by how much it gets used, and how it gets used. Aside from my common example of the fact that I've been used as a "source" on Wikipedia for years (not to say there's anything wrong with the information I presented, but it's just rather comical to me), there are a number of articles discussing how Wikipedia has dealt with the matter of MUDs, and how it highlights many of the issues with Wikipedia itself:

Wikipedia's War on Gaming History and Threshold RPG
MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
Corruption, Treachery and Deceit at Wikipedia
Losing MUD history

There are a bunch of other articles from around that time (January 2009-ish), one can search around some more if one wants.

That just kind of scratches the surface of some of the other issues that are present in how Wikipedia deals with things though, and is part of why it's very difficult to have any trust or reliance in them.

 

[cuevas. PhD.]

That guy who went to a movie on a first date and went grocery shopping with her then had sex in the parking lot.

He went on to describe her okcupid profile to the point everyone found her and she then saw the thread.

He boasted about how she was the best piece of ass he had in a while. We saw her picture.

That guy

 

[Speedy Blue Dude]

Nah, I don't think so.

 

[Mistel]

Nah, I don't think so.

So many opportunities so little time... Enlighten us to your tags origins if you wouldn't mind.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

So basically the argument comes down to "Other sources can have issues too, so why not just use Wikipedia?" and "Well, even if someone does use Wikipedia, people should do their own research?"

I'm not looking to get into a serious debate about it, I just think it's silly to write it off entirely as a source for any and all contexts. And yes I think those 2 statements are both true.

I have seen Wikipedia used as a "source" in Master's classes. Granted, just regular classes, not a thesis, but still. Part of the problem is that many people are getting too reliant on this single magical "source" where they can look up anything and get the information they want. And that's a very bad habit to get into.

I agree 100%, no argument from me here.

 

[WhiskeyDiver]

Great gif and great thread, major respect for his post

Didn't he make some respectable dosh after that video went semi-viral? At least he got something worthwhile out of it instead of hilarious spiderman gifs.

 

[terrisus]

I'm not looking to get into a serious debate about it, I just think it's silly to write it off entirely as a source for any and all contexts. And yes I think those 2 statements are both true.



I agree 100%, no argument from me here.

Fair enough.

 

[Ahasverus]

read through this

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=394268

Makes me sad, looks like a great thread