Wikepeda Hacking

P

Passivist

New Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
293
Reaction score
0
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20411-2036558,00.html

It occured to me for some time ! especially the long-winded, inaccurate and downright political definitions of who is or isn't a real deaf person was messed about with on the Wikepedia site. Real deaf people have the Big D etc, little d people don't have a culture or language, aren't proper deaf etc, Wikepedia should ONLY accept defitinitions where a common consensus (Majority), have been consulted and agreed on it. These stupid definitions that divide us all, are gaining credence with little or no backing from most, and entering vocabulary via colloquialisms by default, thus proving if you spout rubbish relentlessly it will end up a 'fact. I think the current 'defintitons' of sign and deaf culture are persently and totally inaccurate, and where, is the protection from these broad and dismissive decalartions for others ? E.G. In the UK BSL is hailed as a recognised 'language' by the UK government, it is, but, was forced on them by a European directive, up until then it was opposed, and still, has no force in UK law, the Wikepedia suggests something totally different.
 
I'm not exactly sure how to do it, but there is a way to flag an article whose neutrality or accuracy are disputed.
 
it allow to be edit by anyone who can correct the information of everything.

oh well.
 
Rose Immortal said:
I'm not exactly sure how to do it, but there is a way to flag an article whose neutrality or accuracy are disputed.
Click to expand...


I'd like to flag the lot ! The endless hype of Big D and Little d, is fantasy and hugely inaccurate, not witholding it is gross generalisations fuelled by flooding of Wikepedia with 'facts' by poilitcally motivated deaf culturists, worse, mainstream assumes it IS correct, and the rest of us are having to correct them all the time. It has in some cases seriously undermined access as well. People need to realise Wikepdia ISN'T a fact-based 'dictionary', you can (And clearly deaf culture DOES), claim and state whatever they like, they make it look so 'official' too, the 'references' are NOT valid in many cases either, as they come FROM the deaf cultural area and are clearly, biased.

Wikepedia needs to zap the deaf defintions until a valid consensus agrees with it. There is nothing in reality to stop anyone here claiming all deaf people are descended from a deaf Jesus Christ if they want ! It's ridiculous.
 
gnulinuxman said:
I'm suspicious of anything on Wikipedia that doesn't have any citations.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Wikipedia has started to come under fire from people who have been unfairly and inaccurately libelled due to misinformation posted about them by their detractors. It's a great little tool in many ways but unless cited like you say, pretty much everything on it should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Any encyclopedia is like this, though. Check out the 11th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, often called the greatest edition ever (it's available online for free, since it's now public domain). Lots of errors, lots of politics, lots of ranting and non-neutral points of view.

An encyclopaedia - of any sort - should *never* be used as a final source of information. Rather, it should act as a tool to give you enough background to seek out more reliable sources of information.
 
ismi said:
An encyclopaedia - of any sort - should *never* be used as a final source of information. Rather, it should act as a tool to give you enough background to seek out more reliable sources of information.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY how I used Wikipedia for research in school! The better articles there can give good pointers for directions of research when you're first trying to get your outline together. Still, it should never be used alone--only after facts are confirmed elsewhere.

A lot of what I would see for the topics I researched was accurate, but anywhere a subject gets contentious--that's where extra vigilance is a MUST.
 
Rose Immortal said:
EXACTLY how I used Wikipedia for research in school! The better articles there can give good pointers for directions of research when you're first trying to get your outline together. Still, it should never be used alone--only after facts are confirmed elsewhere.

A lot of what I would see for the topics I researched was accurate, but anywhere a subject gets contentious--that's where extra vigilance is a MUST.
Click to expand...


We've read in the UK, of students doing deaf history courses using Wikipedia as a viable source of information about deaf issues, and, tutors and invigilators taking it at face value too. Why aren't universities and colleges declaring this is NOT a valid reference for their course material ?
 
ismi said:
Any encyclopedia is like this, though. Check out the 11th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, often called the greatest edition ever (it's available online for free, since it's now public domain). Lots of errors, lots of politics, lots of ranting and non-neutral points of view.

An encyclopaedia - of any sort - should *never* be used as a final source of information. Rather, it should act as a tool to give you enough background to seek out more reliable sources of information.
Click to expand...
:gpost: Agreed!
 
Passivist said:
We've read in the UK, of students doing deaf history courses using Wikipedia as a viable source of information about deaf issues, and, tutors and invigilators taking it at face value too. Why aren't universities and colleges declaring this is NOT a valid reference for their course material ?
Click to expand...
Like ismi said, no encyclopedia is 100% accurate. If they don't allow Wikipedia, they have to ban all other encyclopedias too to be fair.
 
gnulinuxman said:
Like ismi said, no encyclopedia is 100% accurate. If they don't allow Wikipedia, they have to ban all other encyclopedias too to be fair.
Click to expand...

I've had teachers in the past that did exactly that, and said that encyclopedias would not be counted as a reference even if you used one.
 
gnulinuxman said:
Like ismi said, no encyclopedia is 100% accurate. If they don't allow Wikipedia, they have to ban all other encyclopedias too to be fair.
Click to expand...


Wikipedia is NOT anything much at all, but a collection of unsourced declarations and 'definitions' with no back up. As for banning reference to Wikipedia, the UK Uni system already does. A student can use validated references of standing, but cannot quote the Wikipedia as THE source, so that means here at least the Wikipedia's long-winded preamble on D, d and culture cannot be quoted in the UK as fact, and carries no weight. This tends to leave the Brits with just one definition of deaf, someone who cannot hear, which also means culturality isn't recognised yet.
 
Back
Top