Compare http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... _monolake/ to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1

Which is the more reliable: Wikipedia or Nasa?

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

Obviously Wikipedia since anyone can edit it whenever they want - how is that not reliable?

_________________
The chemistry must be respected.

Of course, most forget that wiki keeps a history of the updates so that if someone screws it up, then the editors can fix it.

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

Still someone can subtley spread misinformation about a topic without blatantly screwing something up through edits, ergo less reliable. Nasa are an authority on matters of science - why wouldn't you consider them more reliable? Unless you're thinking that Nasa are covertly spreading misinformation to allow the easy take-over of Earth by an alien master race - in which case I for one welcome the new alien overlords.

_________________
The chemistry must be respected.

I would say Wikipedia. NASA is more likely to have an agenda, even if it's only to push the importance of its own research in order to continue to receive funding. Also, if a mistake is discovered on a Wikipedia page, it is likely to be corrected, whereas a mistake on a NASA page would probably not even be noticed.

On the other hand, it's fashionable to rag on Wikipedia because, hey, anyone can edit it, so it must be full of crap, amirite?

I'm not arguing wikipedia isn't as reliable because it's fashionable - I use it all the time for my degree because for the most part information that is put up about chemistry is done by PhD students who do actually give a damn about their research topic so mostly for science it is reliable. I'm just saying when considering the websites on the whole wikipedia still is less reliable because it can be edited, even if Nasa does have their own agenda I still wouldn't think they're going to be spreading information that isn't true whereas you do run that risk with wikipedia if someone cared enough to subtley sabotage a page for their own reasons.

_________________
The chemistry must be respected.

Just because something is hosted on the webpage of NASA, it does not mean it is under the level of scrutiny you would expect. Bad sources, misinterpretation, bad writing, agenda could still influence a NASA article heavily. While the same applies to Wikipedia, they have means to combat them and experience in doing so. Other than that, they have the advantage of multiple viewpoints that can both provide further information and detect errors in the article.

So yes, Wikipedia is superior.

_________________
ONE DAY, IGNUS WILL KILL YOU ALL!

I move that Frigo be removed from the discussion due to the blatant bias shown in his choice of avatar!

No but in all seriousness we don't know that Nasa suffers from bad sources, bad writing, misinterpretation and an agenda - that's just an assumption. I know that for publishing a scientific journal article your article goes under an intensive peer review process until it even stands a chance of publication. I appreciate that the Nasa webpage probably doesn't fall under as much scrutiny - but I do think it would be under a lot more scrutiny then most webpages by dint of how scientific bodies treat their research, unless anyone has worked for such an organisation and has proof overwise? I know if I was publishing a scientific article I would be able to use the Nasa website as a viable source of information but I definitely would not be able to use wikipedia - still you all seem like wikipedia lovers so I doubt I'm convincing anyone!

_________________
The chemistry must be respected.

Yeah, what you probably won't ever get on the NASA site is a page that contains blatant untruths that someone knowingly put up as a joke or to discredit something they don't like. However, I think you would have to be unlucky to actually see that on Wikipedia, since any page with a controversial subject is likely to have a dedicated editor who will quickly revert any malicious changes. And more subtle systematic errors would be difficult to perpetrate because they would likely be picked up and corrected before long.

On the other hand, the people who write the NASA articles are exactly the same people who are likely to also add their latest research to Wikipedia. The difference being that once a page is "published" on any non-Wikipedia site it could be difficult to correct any errors due to the publication process that the site requires - the author is probably several steps removed from the website technician who actually makes changes to the site. Whereas errors or research updates can be made immediately to Wikipedia pages.

So, in my opinion, the risk of falling foul of a deliberate error on Wikipedia is far less than the risk of seeing an inadvertant error or outdated research on a NASA page.

I do agree that you would be very unlucky to fall foul of that on Wikipedia, and honestly I don't know how website editing is handled so I'm sure you're right about more small errors slipping through - still a small error in spelling or grammar doesn't make the actual content of a webpage unreliable, and I don't feel like errors in content would be made on Nasa's website. In regards to webpages being outdated, I'm sure new ones in the research area would be published eventually to keep up with the times - though clearly in this example the article is outdated as there has yet to be a response to their critism. This doesn't mean to say that their original article was full of crap however, scientists often try to discredit each other due to their own egos and that they think they can make themselves look clever by crapping over other peoples' hard work. As I said scientific research articles do fall under a great deal of scrutiny; it would seem counterintuitive for a research body to put that much care into its articles and yet let its webpage slide, it would also turn them into a joke of the science community if they did.

I still stand by my assertion that Nasa would be more reliable for content than wikipedia - but only by a smidge. They're both quite reliable in my book. If I'd had known this was going to turn into such a debate I wouldn't have been so glib in my first response, I even voted for Wikipedia for irony's sake - I guess there's egg on my face now! Without looking at the original article I can't be sure how sensationalist Nasa's claims were, but "Science" where the article was published is the leading scientific journal in the world - most researchers would give their right arm to get an article in there so I doubt what they wrote on the webpage was that misleading if it's based primarily on the article.

_________________
The chemistry must be respected.

Considering that Frigo had no choice in what avatar he has, I move for having Frigo remain in the discussion.

_________________

It was a joke obviously.

_________________
The chemistry must be respected.

What I enjoy about Wikipedia is that it offers more than one viewpoint and opposing information from critics, where available. The NASA article just says everything positive about the discovery and completely ignores any negatives addressed by critics. I feel that NASA is definitely attempting to further an agenda, which would be something related to increasing their budget. Wikipedia's agenda is simply to make information available to anyone who has the internet. While it's true that anyone can edit a wiki, that doesn't mean everyone is an idiot. However, with NASA, as was stated earlier in the thread, there are a few more involved steps in adding information to a government based organization's website. I think Wikipedia is more reliable, as well as less biased.
But, this also means that people searching for information on a particular subject forgo in-depth research and instead go for Wikipedia. I've seen countless articles on differing websites with information presented identically to that which may be found on the online encyclopedia. On top of that, in particular searches I've made, the only online source of information regarding that search is on Wikipedia. I've made dozens of differently worded searches regarding the green pipestone given to me for my birthday, but the only website that comes up is Wikipedia. On top of that, it's simply a run-down of where the stone is found and what it's made of, there's no information on the hardness of the stone and the best way to carve it, despite it having a purpose, and that purpose being found in the name of the very stone.

_________________

Lets put it this way. NASA is accepted as an academic source where as Wiki is not. Any discussion afterwards would be futile because that is the way Universities look at it and no matter how smart you feel by debating this it doesn't change the fact that they are smarter.

_________________

Yeah, unfortunately that's true. I don't know of any professor or teacher that will accept Wikipedia as a credible source of information in a paper as part of research done.
My point is that you can't rely in Wikipedia for everything, despite personally finding it more reliable than a biased government website.
Even better than Wikipedia is a comprehensive library, like one found in a university.

_________________

Saying that, though, Wikipedia often cites its sources, which can be used as part of a university-level bibliography; not to mention the fact that a surprising amount of Wiki articles are a cut-and-paste collage from various reliable websites, which need only to be found by cutting a chunk out and googling it; and, even if that doesn't work completely, it gives you a narrow Google search which will most probably find something reputable online with the exact information you're looking for.

_________________

That is not necessarily true. Due to the rules of Wikipedia there are always plenty of citations in an article. A student could simply list those sources in his paper instead of the wiki article.

_________________
ONE DAY, IGNUS WILL KILL YOU ALL!

There are probably two main reasons behind this. Firstly, Wikipedia is constantly being updated, so citing it as a source is difficult because the content of a page might change (or the page itself might be moved completely) by the time your own writing gets looked at.

Secondly, if universities did allow Wikipedia as a source, everyone would just use that. They want you to learn how to find things from other places. Even if all you do is follow the citations on the Wikipedia page.

They tell us it is because anyone can change the content and therefore it is not reliable.

_________________

The real reason is that they're blinkered traditionalists who are afraid of change.

Using the sources of a wiki article isn't directly using the wiki article, though.

_________________

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one on this forum with any sort of doctoral degree (could be wrong, I know DE teaches), and I can tell you there is a time and a place for sources like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great casual reference, or even a great jumping off point for further research, but it is not a credible source in and of itself. Nasa.gov isn't something I would quote either, by the by.

When I was writing my final giant-ass paper, I actually used Wikipedia as a starting point for several sections, following the trail of quoted references until you get to something scholarly that's useful or quotable. Writing any sort of paper is best done that way, search until you find an awesome review paper on your topic of choice, and then raid it's Works Cited section for all of your sources.

People that get up in arms about this sort of thing are either brand new to higher-level writing, lazy, or stupid.

_________________
There are things in this world that I dislike. One of the things I dislike the most is a serious argument, well constructed, delivered by someone who makes themselves difficult to respect.

Who needs school when you've got Wikipedia? That's my philosophy.

_________________
"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

I used wikipedia as a starting point to find academic sources for my paper on the extinction of the ediacarans. Of course, I wrote that paper for my first college english course, so it only ended up being eight pages long. And, due to my professor using a new grading system that meant everything under a 97 was a B, I ended up with a B+ as my final grade.

_________________

You should have written about giant asses instead, like Philes did.