Wikipedia

[Woodsheal]

Disregarding the comments re: modern Highland Games, the article about the belted plaid itself is quite accurate, including the time-frame mentioned. The picture is a tad goofy (especially the gauntlets, and whatever that is wrapped around his hose!) but it could very well represent a mid-17th C. clansman wearing a typical doublet (usually made of wool, not leather) and a belted plaid....

[Beery]

I think the contempt some people hold for Wikipedia is funny. It's very much en-vogue these days to scornfully pooh-pooh internet sites, but with regard to Wikipedia I've found that people would rather complain that it's inaccurate than take a little time to fix the entries they find fault with. Anyway, personally I think reports of its inaccuracy are exaggerated. For one thing the people finding fault are no more likely to have their facts straight than are the people contributing articles to Wikipedia. Plus, I've found that in areas where I'm knowledgeable it has often been as accurate as online encyclopedias that I'd pay big $$ for and where it's inaccurate it's in details that really don't matter for the purposes I'm using it for. Then there's the fact that it's completely free. What should we expect from a free resource? Short answer - nothing, because it's free!

Personally I use Wikipedia a lot. It's relatively accurate in general and it gives informative links, so it's a great place to start research and a great place to look when you want to know simple info like who someone is (i.e. who is John Lydon) or what something is (what is a MacPherson strut). Do I need perfect info at that point in my research? No. I need a general overview and Wikipedia does at least as well as The History Channel in terms of getting its facts right.

In short, I have two options: I can look online at Wikipedia and get reasonably good general info or I can go downstairs and access my Encyclopedia Britannica and get well researched hard data. Since finding Wikipedia I've accessed it hundreds of times. Since that time, how many times have I needed to open the Britannica for more detailed and more certain info? Not once. Draw your own conclusions.

Also, Wikipedia can only get more accurate as more people (and more knowledgeable people) contribute. But as long as people are complaining about it rather than fixing it, it's only going to be as good as the willingness of the community to stop whining about it and make a positive change. After all, it's not as if it's hard to alter. If Wikipedia is flawed it's flawed because the public's preference for complaining and poking fun is only matched by its unwillingness to make positive change.

In terms of whether the guy in the picture is a historical reenactor or a Renaissance Faire attendee, well does it really matter? Historical reenactors are often not much more accurately attired than Ren Faire folks. Historical reenactments are often the grown-up equivalent of playing army (and I should know, since I'm a reenactor myself - I've been one since about 1995). In my experience with WWI reenacting at the biggest WWI site in the US the participants usually don't know how to wear their clothes (they often button their clothes in an unhistorical fashion), they don't know how WWI era people spoke, they don't know how to properly man a trench, they don't know how to advance across open ground or how to perform a trench raid, the organizers of the event build trenches too close to one another (so close that a man in the Allied forward trenches can often lob a grenade into the enemy forward trench - something that would never havbe been allowed to continue in real life), they can't tell a fire trench from a traverse or a parapet from a parados, and they build dugouts with their entrances uncovered and facing the enemy line. In short, WWI reenactors have the historical sense of a 5 year-old child. I have reason to believe that this level of ignorance is widespread throughout the reenacting community. I wouldn't trust most reenactors to accurately recreate a modern bring and buy sale.

[ronstew]

Orion was bright last night, and I noticed that the upper left corner was strkingly red. Wikipedia told me that the star in question is Betelgeuse, about 430 light years away, with a radius similar to the distance between the sun and Mars or Jupiter.

Good enough for me.

If you worry about the veracity of a particular article, read the discussion page. You will find out quickly whether the editors are passionate or knowledgeable.

[Nanook]

Also, Wikipedia can only get more accurate as more people (and more knowledgeable people) contribute. But as long as people are complaining about it rather than fixing it, it's only going to be as good as the willingness of the community to stop whining about it and make a positive change. After all, it's not as if it's hard to alter.

More does not mean better. Wikipedia is not "peer reviewed" and has no standards of review beyond the collective "ego" of the "knowledgeable people" (anyone) that edit or create content. There is no mechanism to see what is written is reasonable and much is not. There is, unfortunately, little means to distinguish "hogwash" from "good content". Like hearsay and gossip there is often a bit of truth but a lot of noise thrown in. Time and again I see incorrect information from popular web sites used as gospel for Wikipedia. While there is a lot of good information in Wikipedia hardly a topic is not flawed. Worse still Wikipedia's success has brought the "instant" culture into the class room. Many school children--- and unfortunately also their teachers--- it seems don't go beyond Wikipedia and so the skills of research (despite the increased and widespread availability of online tools and interfaces to the world's libraries and archives) seem to be in rapid decline.

[Beery]

More does not mean better. Wikipedia is not "peer reviewed" and has no standards of review beyond the collective "ego" of the "knowledgeable people" (anyone) that edit or create content. There is no mechanism to see what is written is reasonable and much is not. There is, unfortunately, little means to distinguish "hogwash" from "good content"...

This is also the case with well-regarded news reports, peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals and any information source there is, from the BBC and the Encyclopedia Britannica to Joe Bloggs, the crazed hobo who lives in a service station public bathroom and who broadcasts his musings via loudspeaker at passing freeway traffic.

Peer reviews and other mechanisms to ensure reasonableness often do no such thing and are in fact just as likely to skew facts to suit an agenda (whether the agenda is conscious or subconscious) as uninformed people are likely to skew facts based on ignorance. The fact is, EVERY information source (not just Wikipedia) ought to be looked at with healthy skepticism. Wikipedia is no worse than any other source - in fact it's better in the sense that it doesn't have some self-proclaimed 'expert' claiming that the info is 'authoritative' or 'peer-reviewed' as if those things mean that the authors have acquired a higher level of 'truthiness'. A group of people with degrees from Harvard, Priceton, Yale and Cambridge can still make mistakes in their chosen field of study. Authority is no guarantor of accuracy and anyone who cites authority as conveying accuracy is trying (whether consciously or subconsciously) to fool you.

My point is that Wikipedia is an easy target for unfair criticism. The criticism is unfair because the criticism levelled at it - that it's unreliable - is potentially true of every single info source known to humankind. That's why it's the READER (not the writer of an article) who ALWAYS has the ultimate responsibility to cross-check facts if he requires a greater level of certainty and accuracy. This is the case whether the info comes from Wikipedia or from the New York Times, or from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Mike1]

Then there's the fact that it's completely free. What should we expect from a free resource? Short answer - nothing, because it's free!

And as we all know, free doesn't generally indicate the quality of anything, but rather the lack of it. I have learned that free information is often worth its own price.

Since that time, how many times have I needed to open the Britannica for more detailed and more certain info? Not once. Draw your own conclusions.

If you are aware that you have "more detailed and more certain info" available for your research and you prefer not to use it, the conclusion is easily drawn.

Also, Wikipedia can only get more accurate as more people (and more knowledgeable people) contribute.

Which goes without saying, no question. But when someone with my knowledge is able to edit an article that is outside my realm of knowledge, then Wikipedia will always be suspect. As you stated above, there are "more detailed and more certain" reference materials available.

Since this discussion has nothing to do with the wearing of a kilt, I am moving it to Off Topic.

[Beery]

...If you are aware that you have "more detailed and more certain info" available for your research and you prefer not to use it, the conclusion is easily drawn...

Why should I need more detailed info when I don't need the info to be that detailed? If all I need to know - just to serve my curiosity - is that John Lydon is a punk rock singer I can get that info and more from Wikipedia, and since I'm just curious I really don't need to cross-check it because it really doesn't matter if the info is completely wrong. On the other hand if I'm writing a paper for a college course on punk rock and I need to know his exact birthdate and the date he joined the Sex Pistols I'll get out my Britannica. But even if I get the info from Britannica I'll still be best-served if I check with another source because Britannica can get things wrong too. I'd be best served by getting a copy of Lydon's birth certificate - but even those can be wrong.

If you trust any single information source, however well-regarded that source is, you're setting yourself up for error and disappointment. There is no ultimate objective and reliable source for data. They are ALL prone to error or spin. Those who think otherwise are fooling themselves far more than they can be fooled by the odd bad piece of Wikipedia info.

[Caradoc]

If you trust any single information source, however well-regarded that source is, you're setting yourself up for error and disappointment.

Exactly.

And anyone who complains about Wikipedia's inaccuracies while failing to make their own updates/changes is also failing to see the bigger picture.

[McMurdo]

Here is a link to Wikipedia hoaxes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_hoax
There have been many. I dont think the author meant any harm from the article.

If you belive that that you need to then by all means edit the page, and let us know when you have it would be nice to see the differences.

[Panache]

In Defense of Wikipedia,

I have it listed as a favorite and often use it as a first step when I am looking something up. I have found many useful links on Wikipedia that have led me to what I was looking for, including X Marks the Scot. I certainly wouldn't recomend using it as a sole source of information, or treating it as a final word on any subject. But I still find it a very useful resource.

Someone here once mentioned that the information on the internet is a vast ocean, but sadly one that is only on average an inch deep. With most information on the internet, your best bet is to find additional sources to check any information you glean.

Cheers