Wikipedia

[beloitpiper]

I was looking at the Wikipedia article for Belted Plaid and it seemed a bit...off.

I'll ignore the unprofessional air this article has (it reads more like a book than an encyclopedia article), but some of the facts just seemed wrong. Example:

The belted plaid, as we shall refer to it henceforth, was a standard item of men's Highland dress from the late 16th century until the middle of the 18th century.

Also, they refer to this:

as a "Historical re-enactor"

Another thing; in the section "The Kilt at Highland Games Today", the author lambasts modern Highland Games for their lack of Belted Plaids. IMOP, Highland Games are for celebration of Scottish Culture, not fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of reenactors and think they are very fun and educational to have at Highland Games, but to call it "ironic" that everybody is wearing modern kilts instead of Belted Plaids is just ignorant. That's like saying it's ironic that we're not all dressed like minute men during the 4th of July.

What are your thoughts?

[macwilkin]

was looking at the Wikipedia article for Belted Plaid and it seemed a bit...off.

I'll ignore the unprofessional air this article has (it reads more like a book than an encyclopedia article), but some of the facts just seemed wrong.

Hence why most university librarians and instructors, myself included, strongly discourage our students from using Wikipedia as a source for research -- remember, anyone can edit an entry in Wikipedia -- with incorrect information.

Stay far awa' frae it, and consult your local reference librarian!

T.

[Splash_4]

Another thing; in the section "The Kilt at Highland Games Today", the author lambasts modern Highland Games for their lack of Belted Plaids.

I do understand what he is trying to say. But for most of us, the belted plaid is just not a garment I would consider wearing on any sort of frequent basis. The modern kilt is a much easiere garment to wear and is certainly more recognizable by the public than the plaid.

[beloitpiper]

Hence why most university librarians and instructors, myself included, strongly discourage our students from using Wikipedia as a source for research -- remember, anyone can edit an entry in Wikipedia -- with incorrect information.

Stay far awa' frae it, and consult your local reference librarian!

T.

Yes, yes, I'm a college student (a serious college student) and I know not to use Wikipedia as a resource, but still, a lot of people look at this. I'd like the information to be correct.

[Caradoc]

I'd like the information to be correct.

So... correct it?

Wikipedia is a product of the commons. If you see something is wrong, go fix it.

I've done that a few times myself.

[AllenJ]

yeah wiki is just about one of the worst places to get information from. If you have a time and disposition to fix it, by all means, please do. However, I've noticed that most of the time, you'll return to the entry a day later and warcraft fanboy has changed it back to what he and his guild buddies wrote. I suppose I dont feel the need to change it because I know where to get reliable info from and when I talk to others, I direct them to those sources as opposed to Wiki.

[Improv1]

My twelve-year-old is in the advanced program at his school, and the teacher strongly recommends Wiki as the resource to use. I have had a chat with her about it, and opened her eyes a little. I am all for freedom of expression, but Wiki allows anyone to disseminate false information and pass it off as scholarly. There is even room to submit negative information about living people. I read the article on our current Mayor (I didn't support her) and was shocked to see a smear campaign against her on the site. As to the accuracy of information...

The following is quoted from the Wikipedia site:

"There has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference for consensus or popularity over credentials. Information is sometimes unconfirmed and questionable, lacking the proper sources that, in the eyes of most "Wikipedians" (as Wikipedia's contributors call themselves), are necessary for an article to be considered "high quality". However, a 2005 comparison performed by the science journal Nature of sections of Wikipedia and the Encyclopædia Britannica found that the two were close in terms of the accuracy of their articles on the natural sciences. This study was challenged by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., who described it as "fatally flawed".[3"

[gilmore]

I once knew of some one who wanted to start a cult with himself as head guru. Several articles were posted on Wikipedia full of falsities about him and his miraculous abilities, the allegedly hidden lineage of ancient teachings that had been revealed to him alone, and untrue stories about his connections with actual, vaild and well-respected teachers of a certain Eastern religion. He then created links from his homepage to these Wikipedia articles, which gave him credibility in some people's eyes. It would have been hilarious if some naive folks hadn't taken him seriously.

Since then, he has gotten out of the guru business and has moved on to selling real estate in south Florida, but the last time I looked, a couple of years ago, the articles were still there

[Kilted KT]

looks to me like the pic is of a "pirate" of sorts. I don't recall ever wanting to dress like that with any of my kilts..

[Canadian_Kilt]

I agree - go ahead and edit it. That's the idea.

While I think you have take the things you read on wiki with a grain of salt, it does have it's uses. I find that it does give you the general public's perspective on a lot of things. So while it's not an *accurate* source of information, it can still be very informative.