The "Reasons Why Wikipedia Is Not So Credible" Thread

[Captain_BluTac]

Oldest in the world?

The British Conservative Party is older, using just about any standard you like. The earliest ancestor of the modern Democratic Party first formed in 1792, while the earliest ancestor of the modern Conservatives was around in 1678. The more direct ancestor of the modern Conservatives, the Pittites, formed before 1783. The name "Democratic Party" emerged in the United States over the course of the 1830s, and the Democratic National Committee was only formed in 1848 while the name "Conservative Party" was first suggested in the 1820s and codified with the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834. I don't understand how the Democrats are even arguably the oldest in the world. -- The_socialist talk? 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The sentence says, "it is arguably the oldest party in the world." Two references are provided; do you have a reference that says that there is not arguemnt of whether or not it is the oldest party? (That would be needed in order amend that sentence). I personally couldn't care less; seems like trivia indeed ;-) Signaturebrendel 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 'Arguably'? Weasel words - I'm correcting and here's potted history of the UK Tory party (also see comment above), and it is still known as the Tory party today. Your ref states: "The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. I've removed unsubstantiated claim. Mimi (yack) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Actually the American constitution isn't the oldest in the world either, see here and then there's one older in India I think, there's certainly one older than 400 years, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man is 1776 I think, anyway that doesn't matter. You can't even say the American constitution is the oldest unchanged in the world so whether it's the oldest in use is a moot point. Mimi (yack) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC) There's plenty of books that state it is the oldest constitution. But in the case of conflicting reliable sources, Wiki NPOV means that the statement or article must be neutrally maintained: "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner," (emphasis mine). You removed Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, 15. "The country possesses the world's oldest written constitution (1787); the Democratic Party has a good claim to being the world's oldest political party." I could probably add some books with the claim but I'll await other people's thoughts first before bothering to do more work. Settler (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Your citation stated "among the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. My citation is factual and contradicts that the american party is the oldest. Before you knock both of us out arguing this further can you ask yourself how much this really matters; whether it is the oldest or not, does it make it any better? Mimi (yack) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC) A consensus was reached (not involving me) to leave "arguably the oldest political party in the world". It is not I that have chosen to disregard it. On the talk page, some obscure, anonymously written web page that is not reliable by itself. Settler (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)P.S. Upon further digging, the web page may or may not be written by one John Simkin.Settler (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I'm always intrigued by the notion that factual truth can be decided by consensus; it can't, the only fact decided by the consensus was whether to display the truth, or not. The truth is that no American political party is the oldest in the world. Mimi (yack) 10:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC) It is intriguing. It's also one of the five cornerstones of modern scientific pursuit - Hypothesis, Experiment, Reproduction, Debate, Consensus. Also, it is the point of encyclopedia to produce the best referenced and reputable material available, not pursue its own research.--Primal Chaos (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So facts are decided on consensus rather than fact, yup, totally credible.

 

[PLAS]

So facts are decided on consensus rather than fact, yup, totally credible.

isn't it always like that?

 

[Mike_D202]

I love wikipedia. I read a lot of information there that I wanna learn more about (like the history of nintendo for example). Sure people can edit it but it gets quickly re-edited if somebody decides to put mis-information there.

 

[BatMatt]

only on average are 8% of the facts on Wikipedia wrong, where as the number for Encyclopedia Britannica is around 5%. Don't use it for a term paper but I think it's a great starting point

 

[PLAS]

only on average are 8% of the facts on Wikipedia wrong, where as the number for Encyclopedia Britannica is around 5%. Don't use it for a term paper but I think it's a great starting point

I always tell my students to use it as a starting point, and then go over the references mentioned

 

[BatMatt]

I always tell my students to use it as a starting point, and then go over the references mentioned

good idea, my approach is to look it up on wikipedia and then go to the external links or citation links. I also read wikipedia for fun

 

[Captain_BluTac]

only on average are 8% of the facts on Wikipedia wrong, where as the number for Encyclopedia Britannica is around 5%. Don't use it for a term paper but I think it's a great starting point

Where'd you get those figures, Wikipedia?

 

[StrainedEyes]

i love wikipedia

 

[The Shape]

You gott love Wikipedia, simply because it offers easy access to nearly anything a person could want to know. You obviously can't cite it for a research paper, but there are plenty of citations at the bottom of every Wikipedia page that are great to use...

 

[BatMatt]

Where'd you get those figures, Wikipedia?

nooo, a media summit

 

[Carcharodon]

Heh, I've had professors threaten to flunk people who use Wikipedia as a source on research papers.

Then, recently, I wrote a paper on ocean acidification for my Oceanography course. Mind you, my professors were complete morons: they would spout erroneous information to the entire class, or contradict themselves to no end.

In any case, for this paper the instructor (there were two, actually) condoned Wikipedia as a source (but told us to use it as a starting point and to use others as well).

In my sources, I had two books (non-reference), a site for an official study (organization named and cited as well), a government site and a news site. The news site was more to emphasize a point than to provide facts/data.

I got my paper back, and he docked me five points (out of fifty) for using the news site as a source. The same professor that condoned the use of Wiki****ingpedia as a source docked me a rather large amount of points for using a news site.

I avoid Wikipedia whenever I can, usually, unless it's for non-academic purposes.