From a joke to respected the Wikipedia story

by E5 on May 12, 2008 8:04 PM EDT Comment 11 comments

So often we sometime make fun of things and not realize how things have changed. Baseball is one of those sports were we are constantly learning and trying new theories. Wikipedia used to be considered taboo in the academic realm but now it apparently has gained a new found respect.

I don't know if there is an baseball equivalent for wikipedia but I would be interested in hearing what web sites reader here like to read or gather information from that is general not recognized or respected by the mainstream media or baseball fan.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Um.

It’s an interesting article – but as a former academic and current lawyer, never, ever, under any circumstances cite Wikipedia as support for a proposition. Seriously, remember the Michael Scott monologue from The Office…

For baseball stats, though, I use baseball reference…

Baseball Think Factory is also good, and of course, John Sickels’ excellent minor league fanblog on SB Nation…

by nuthinboutnuthin on May 12, 2008 8:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

baseballreference.com

that is

by nuthinboutnuthin on May 12, 2008 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah. I like Think Factory too.

And I think it generally gets somewhat forgotten with BP and THT as its competition.

"Are you a real doctor, or a doctor like Julius Erving is a doctor?"

by Allen Chace on May 12, 2008 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a lawyer too.

Never cite to Wiki. Good source of general info, but once I read something on Wiki I have to go find a reliable source on it.

FJM is my favorite non-OTM baseball blog.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on May 12, 2008 10:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Reading Material

I like Sons of Sam Horn (SoSH) for its often sophisticated baseball discussion.

Yanksfan vs. Soxfan is good for rivalry talk, and has great gamethreads.
http://yanksfansoxfan.typepad.com/

FJM is hilarious. The only criticism I can make of that site is that they start swearing and think that makes their work funny.

mlbtraderumors.com can be fun for learning about other teams and their needs, and following rumors. You just have to realize that 99% of the deals discussed never happen, and that many of them shouldn’t happen.

Baseball-reference.com is an invaluable resource for team and player stats, and gamelogs.

by 0157H7 on May 12, 2008 11:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You've got MLBTR pegged, ecoli

Not all the rumors come true. That’s why they’re called rumors. A lot of people (not as much anymore), but used to be up in arms because “oh, well that one didn’t happen”. MLBTR has never claimed to predict the future with 100% success. Good point on YFSF as well.

"Are you a real doctor, or a doctor like Julius Erving is a doctor?"

by Allen Chace on May 13, 2008 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

MLBTR

I’ll never forget the Santana talks. I used to go there all the time to see if there was anything new about it. I kept reading “it’s close” or “Santana is already traded to the Sox, say [insert random name here]”. If we didn’t have to give Tacoby, I wanted it to happen really bad. Now, I’m not so sure. But at the time it seemed great to me.

However, it was only then I knew not to trust them 100%.

Walk on, walk on With hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone You'll never walk alone

by MerryGoByeBye on May 13, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But swearing IS funny

sometimes.

I tried YFSF a couple years ago, immediately got into an argument with a Yankee troll and suddenly found myself being bombarded with inanity from all sides. Then I got banned. I didn’t go back.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on May 13, 2008 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm an academic

I always tell my students that any idiot can change any page on Wikipedia, so using citing it is like citing any idiot. Nevertheless, an empirical study comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Brittanica found fewer errors per entry on Wikipedia (controlling for length of entry, of course). That makes it a good source of general information provided you can find reliable sources to back up what it says.

by RSNexile on May 13, 2008 8:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What do you teach?

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on May 13, 2008 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wiki

Wikipedia should not be considered authoritative on anything, even though it is well-written on many topics. Like all publications, the quality of the writing must be judged independently. I find it very useful for tracking down trivia, and when it comes to professional matters, it is good for providing links to original sources.

Put another way: don’t cite Wikipedia. Read the sources linked to there and cite them. (And with some exceptions, one shouldn’t be citing review articles in any case.)

by RickD on May 14, 2008 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs