Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia"
(As far as I know, neither edit any more.) |
Kevin Wang (talk | contribs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Wikipedia''' is an online encyclopedia edited by people who may or may not be specialists in their fields. Because of this, the quality of any given Wikipedia article is highly variable, and some articles are downright wrong. | + | '''Wikipedia''' is an online encyclopedia edited by people who may or may not be specialists in their fields. Because of this, the quality of any given Wikipedia article is highly variable, and some articles are downright wrong. Additionally, the significance or notability of a topic on Wikipedia often cannot be accurately gauged and is in no way related to an article's length. Thus, Wikipedia should be used sparingly. |
| − | Despite this, many | + | Despite this, many people continue to use Wikipedia as their only reference source when writing questions. |
| − | + | Several tournaments have sought to rectify this problem by introducing penalty fees for [[plagiarism|Wikiplagiarism]]. | |
| + | [[ACF]] previously (until 2014) levied a $25 penalty for using Wikipedia as the sole source in a packet submission. | ||
Wikipedia apparently does not abide by its own [[College Bowl#Wikipedia_editing_scandal|conflict of interest rules]]. | Wikipedia apparently does not abide by its own [[College Bowl#Wikipedia_editing_scandal|conflict of interest rules]]. | ||
| − | Wikipedia has an article on | + | ==Article on quizbowl== |
| + | Wikipedia has an [[wikipedia:quizbowl|article on quizbowl]]. The article has no main editor with general experience in the topic to prevent it from becoming a grab bag of [[trivia]] and a battleground for various uninteresting personal crusades. This is likely due to the difficulty of finding Wikipedia-worthy sources covering quizbowl on the Internet, along with Wikipedia's insistence on a policy of neutrality that by nature forbids anything on the distinction between "[[good quizbowl]]" and "[[bad quizbowl]]". Thus, it is much like any article on Wikipedia. | ||
| − | Some current and former quizbowl personalities were once very active on Wikipedia, notably including [[Adam Bishop]] | + | ==Quizbowlers on Wikipedia== |
| + | Some current and former quizbowl personalities were once very active on Wikipedia, notably including [[Adam Bishop]], [[David Levinson]], and [[Patrick Liao]]. Conversely, [[Matt Weiner]] and [[Eric Kwartler]] would probably be more active in the anti-Wikipedia community if the "anti-Wikipedia community" actually cared about the legitimacy of reference sources and was not just dedicated to online drama and calling people by racial slurs. | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Question Writing]] |
[[Category:Original QBWiki Page]] | [[Category:Original QBWiki Page]] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:05, 6 January 2022
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia edited by people who may or may not be specialists in their fields. Because of this, the quality of any given Wikipedia article is highly variable, and some articles are downright wrong. Additionally, the significance or notability of a topic on Wikipedia often cannot be accurately gauged and is in no way related to an article's length. Thus, Wikipedia should be used sparingly.
Despite this, many people continue to use Wikipedia as their only reference source when writing questions.
Several tournaments have sought to rectify this problem by introducing penalty fees for Wikiplagiarism. ACF previously (until 2014) levied a $25 penalty for using Wikipedia as the sole source in a packet submission.
Wikipedia apparently does not abide by its own conflict of interest rules.
Article on quizbowl
Wikipedia has an article on quizbowl. The article has no main editor with general experience in the topic to prevent it from becoming a grab bag of trivia and a battleground for various uninteresting personal crusades. This is likely due to the difficulty of finding Wikipedia-worthy sources covering quizbowl on the Internet, along with Wikipedia's insistence on a policy of neutrality that by nature forbids anything on the distinction between "good quizbowl" and "bad quizbowl". Thus, it is much like any article on Wikipedia.
Quizbowlers on Wikipedia
Some current and former quizbowl personalities were once very active on Wikipedia, notably including Adam Bishop, David Levinson, and Patrick Liao. Conversely, Matt Weiner and Eric Kwartler would probably be more active in the anti-Wikipedia community if the "anti-Wikipedia community" actually cared about the legitimacy of reference sources and was not just dedicated to online drama and calling people by racial slurs.