Wikipedia is opinion, was: <VV> Parts site

[Bill Elliott]

Those of you on VV-Talk probably guessed it was either myself or Tony
that Mark refers to. In this case it was me.

All journalism is "opinion". A "fact-based" Wiki article is just as
accurate as a Word Book article based on the same facts. The only
difference is that since Wiki posts are written (and policed) by users,
an inaccurate post may take longer to correct. But once noticed, it's
usually quickly corrected.
On the other hand, the accuracy of a formal reference site is only as
good as that of the editing process (often a single person).

BUT Wiki is more up to date than ANY formal reference site since it's
being updated by numerous users with today's current events and how they
effect the current articles even as I write this email. The timeliness
of the updating process alone greatly improves it accuracy over static
reference material.

For anyone with intellectual curiosity, please refer to this article on
a third party study comparing the accuracy of wikipedia to that of the
"standard bearer" Britannica.

http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

I'm not saying that I necessarily completely agree with the study or how
it was performed, but it does make wiki a reasonable reference,
particularly if the article is footnoted (as many are) or references
formal industry standards.

Of course Mark also feels that along with Wiki, neither formal SAE
standards (which the Wiki article in question referenced) nor Car and
Driver (which gave the same SAE based definition of a term) are reliable
automotive references for "industry-recognized" terminology.

Mark felt the use of terminology by (American) automotive marketing
types created a "defacto" new reality and new definitions, even though
those new definitions conflicted with the formal SAE ones and were not
referenced anywhere but in marketing literature. My position was that
the definitions didn't change (because the SAE standards remained
unchanged) and while I acknowledged that the marketing types were
playing loose and free with terminology as it suited them, that didn't
change the actual definitions of the terms. You can guess Mark's
reaction to that position.

In this particular case, the Wiki article referenced the formal SAE
definitions and NOT "popular usage" (as used by the oily marketing
types), leading Mark to judge it (and the similar Car and Driver
definition) inaccurate.

So in that vein Mark is absolutely right that you should consider the
source when evaluating opinions. ;-)

Just as a single data point on a subject we'd all be familiar with, the
Corvair article on Wiki is as accurate and thorough  than virtually any
other single web page... but I guess we must be doing people a
disservice when we point people there since it's not "fact based".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvair

Alternatively, search for Corvair at Britannica.com and you get
references to two articles... one on Ralph Nader and one on American
compact cars... both of which you would have to pay for to read.
Similarly, Worldbook.com gives you "Automotive 1959" as the single
citation. So which reference is more "complete and accurate"?

Maybe it's a generational thing. ;-)

Bill Elliott
ps... spellchecker tried to replace "SAE" with "SANE"... particularly
ironic... ;-)


airvair wrote:

>Just the point I tried to get across recently to one know-it-all on VV.
>The guy was trying to use it as an "authority", and didn't believe me
>when I told him it was popular-opinion-based instead of fact-based. LOL
>It may be good for gauging popular opinion but not scientific fact (or
>in that specific case, industry-recognized terminology).
>
>-Mark
>
>Kent Sullivan wrote:
>  
>
>>Wikis are
>>websites that have built-in editing capability and are designed for a
>>community to collaborate on the content rather than one person's view like a
>>traditional website or blog. (wikipedia.org is probably the most famous
>>example to date)
>>
>>--Kent
>>    
>>
>
>  
>