• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Wikipedia is Groupthink?

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
For some time now I have, against my better judgement, been quoting Wikipedia as a source of information. Not in a *and here's the proof* kind of way; more a *these are the basic facts*. It's a lazy way of doing research, I know.

All the same I get annoyed when people dismiss an argument because the source is Wiki. It's an equally easy and lazy way of dismissing an argument by *discrediting* a source without bothering with the argument.

The problem is that Wikipedia is Truth by Concensus. Groupthink is *Truth* by Concensus and often results in very poor outcomes.

Is Wiki just sophisticated groupthink (with pretend experts on board) and - if so - can using it as a source ever be justified?
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I've seen things on Wiki that are just plain wrong. And sometimes things are written with an obvious slant or bias, not in the encyclopedia (just facts) style that you would expect from wiki. Since wiki is so easily changed by individuals I wouldn't consider it groupthink and I certainly disagree with things I read on there all the time.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Wikipedia is not considered a valid source to use in a paper or research at most universities, but it is a good starting point for research a lot of times. You can look a topic up and the links at the bottom of the page and check them out. Sometimes there are some good sources used in a wikipedia article that you may not have thought to have used in the first place.

Though you must be suspicious of a site that Steven Colbert can have changed at his bidding ;)

("librarians are hiding something")
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Oh okay, 'cause I basically can't take any teacher seriously when they complain about wikipedia. What they do, could be considered groupthink.

But upon reading the rest of the OP I couldn't help noticing you're mostly on my side here.
 

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
Oh okay, 'cause I basically can't take any teacher seriously when they complain about wikipedia. What they do, could be considered groupthink.

I cannot speak for outside of UK but the teachers I had did not indulge in Groupthink. Pedantry would be the word I'd use.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Is Wiki just sophisticated groupthink (with pretend experts on board) and - if so - can using it as a source ever be justified?

That sounds like the kind of thing you'd have to ask the authority you're submitting to. As to whether or not the information on the site is valid, cross reference is a good idea.

I don't really think wiki is groupthink any more than public education, Websters Dictionary, or a church is.

Doesn't anyone understand moderation?
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Additionally, since the inception and popularity rise of the Online Uncyclopedia I'd bet that a lot of the prankster traffic on Wikipedia has subsided.
 

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
That sounds like the kind of thing you'd have to ask the authority you're submitting to. As to whether or not the information on the side is valid, cross reference is a good idea.

I don't really think wiki is groupthink any more than public education, Websters Dictionary, or a church is.

Doesn't anyone understand moderation?

You misunderstand me - with the greatest respect. Websters dictionary, et al, are private works by individuals with an agenda or policy. They are most certainly not Groupthink. Organised religion is most definitely not.

I'm temped to give you the Wiki link to Groupthink. Hell, I will...

Groupthink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spot the irony.:coffee:
 

elfinchilde

a white iris
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,465
MBTI Type
type
hm. i think it's fine to use wikipedia as ONE source of information: seanan pointed out rightly, it is a good place to gain some initial knowledge.

Just not to use it as a de facto "everything is right" source, that's all. Information is usually biased, anyway. Cross referencing is necessary, especially in scientific research: at least 2 or more accredited sources must have obtained the same result before you can quote it in your own study.
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
Wiki's are being rolled into large corporates on their intranets.

I'm involved with one at the moment.

They come under the heading of collaborative tools.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
If I misunderstand you, it's only because you misunderstand groupthink.

Consider the irony spotted.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
*mumbles* Have anybody tried inserting false information into wikipedia?

A group of us tried... on a pharmacology related article... as an assignment joke. The edit was removed within half a day... subsequent repost of it was removed within half hour. They do some serious source checks for wiki...
 

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
If I misunderstand you, it's only because you misunderstand groupthink.

Consider the irony spotted.

Nicely spotted!

I still do not agree with your examples as they do not illustrate rationalised conformity. Your example of "Church" - this varies from highly intellectual theology, which is debated, to wacko cults (that are not), which exempify groupthink.

Veneti's point illustrates the path that Wiki is going down - it seems almost destined to become a corporate tool, jokingly called *collaborative*
 

Falcarius

The Unwieldy Clawed One
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,563
MBTI Type
COOL
Wikipedia is good to get a understanding of the general background of a subject, but obviously anything learnt from it needs to be verified with other sources. Verifying should be done anyway, as the state of 'total neutrality' is near impossible.


I remember finding this interesting.:D
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
Eh?

Examples?

So do dictionaries and public education.

Ya get me now:sadbanana:?

Assuming you know what an intranet is (a closed internet that just resides within a corporation). Wiki's are used to share information and work in progress with many different groups. Matrix organisations always have issues with the different reporting lines so this just helps share information. I've just got involved in one as part of a much larger project and because I'm not on the functional applications side I haven't done all the rounds with the reference sites, to see it in action. Some very large companies are going down the wiki path. Company wiki's are also on extranets so various people in the field can populate data and progress (sharing information).

Corporate wiki's need to evolve to have standard templates such as status reports on them etc... thats when they will evolve into real content management systems. I guess they will blur into the intranet as more and more functionality is added.

Wikis are simply many preparers with many users. Versus books/reports etc which tend to be one preparer and many users.

Most of these threads are effectively a wiki if you consider who's populating it and how info is being shared.
 
Top