• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Have you read Wikipedia much?

Molinaro

Illuminator
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
4,781
Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

Have you read the entry for your home town?

Have you read the entry for your home country?

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?

Have you edited an article?

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?

Have you read an article about a religion?
 
Have you read the entry for your home town?
Yes.

Have you read the entry for your home country?
Yes.

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?
See question 1.

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?
I haven't seen a movie in the past week, but otherwise, no.

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?
My high school doesn't exist any more, and anyway, there's no page for it.

Have you edited an article?
Only very slightly.

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?
Depends on what you mean by "business".

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?
Yes.

Have you read an article about a religion?
Yes.
 
Wikipedia is often my starting point when I search any information, because:
- Google twists and sometimes censors the search results according to the wishes of its sponsors
- in Google the content you are looking for is often buried under loads of irrelevant content totally unrelated to your search words
- wikipedia articles are generally more extensive and neutral than a random page that you would find with Google
- wikipedia articles load quickly, and contain no pop-up windows, no advertisements
- wikipedia articles are usually available in many languages, in case you need to check the vocabulary of the topic in another language
- wikipedia articles usually include an extensive list of links to further information, unlike pages typically found with Google

I have edited some wikipedia pages. On some city pages I have added a link to my online photo collections of the city. I have also cleaned up the article of my favourite hobby minigolf. Some of my edited versions have been removed by the admins, some were removed by others and then restored by admins, I myself have removed some content by others... the admins do have an important role whenever two editors have a different opinion about something. For this reason they lock the most disputed pages such as Jerusalem, 911, etc.
 
Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?
No
Have you read the entry for your home town?
Yes
Have you read the entry for your home country?
Yes
Have you read the entry for your country's capital?
No
Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?
No, I prefer IMDB
Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?
No
Have you edited an article?
Yes - corrected an error in the defn of anthropomorphism and it seems to have stuck
Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?
Yes
Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?
Yes
Have you read an article about a religion?
Yes
 
Yes to most.
I've found wiki to be ok on very non-controversial topics, and the references often pretty good sources.
 
If you go to their general disclaimer, you will find this:

(I would avoid Wikipedia, because of its lack of fact checking and that anyone can edit it with unknown credentials.)

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
"Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."

"However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."

"Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever."
 
I would be a yes to all the OP questions except reading about my old schools (not even sure if they would have a wiki entry, might have to check that out) and I have never edited. (I'm a jack of all trades, master of none. I wouldn't want to lead any other jack's astray).
 
Several of the OP, but not all. I became a convert to Wikipedia a while back because I found a few pop culture articles were worth the read and then "topic creeped" my way into checking out others. If I'm looking for something specific enough that the entry is likely to be the first Google hit, I'll just go to Wikipedia in the first place.
 
Hi, Molinaro.
Interesting questions.
My answer to all, except the last one "Not yet".
I've only learned about Wikipedia since joining here and am still greatly impressed with it as a first step in learning about any given subject.
 
I just read the entry for the area that I'm living in at the moment, and it claims that I live right next to "the second most dangerous street in Britain!":jaw-dropp

I can't find any mention of that particular factoid anywhere else on the web, and there's no reference in the article to back it up, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.
 
Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

No

Have you read the entry for your home town?

No

Have you read the entry for your home country?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?

No

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?

No IMDB is way better for that

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?

No

Have you edited an article?

Yes

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?

No

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?

Yes, pretty often in fact

Have you read an article about a religion?

Yes, pretty often in fact

long live wikipedia
 
Wikipedia has been well known for errors and problems.

Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'
"An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries."
BBC news UK

Jimbo Wales ends death by Wikipedia
Kennedy murder shames online cult
By Cade Metz in San Francisco
"On Tuesday afternoon, following a Washington luncheon celebrating the inauguration of President Barack Obama, longtime US Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd kicked the proverbial bucket. At least, that's what happened in Wikiland. In our world, they're still among the living." theregister UK 1/22/09

Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain
12/06/08 theregister uk
"Wikipedia is not a democracy. But the totalitarian attitudes of the site's ruling clique go much further than Jimbo cares to acknowledge. In early September, the Wikipedia inner circle banned edits from 1,000 homes and one massive online retailer in an attempt to suppress the voice of one man."


The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify
Popular online encyclopedia, plagued by errors, troubles educators
By Lisa Daniels and Alex Johnson
msnbc.com and NBC News
March. 29, 2007
Lisa Daniels
Correspondent
MIDDLEBURY, Vt. - Neil Waters had never seen anything quite like it. “I was looking at a stack of final examinations,” said Waters, a professor of Japanese studies at Middlebury College in Vermont, “and I found several instances of misinformation that [were] identical from one student to another.” All of those students in Waters’ Japanese history class late last year had been steered wrong by the same source — Wikipedia, the sprawling online encyclopedia that has revolutionized how ordinary people find information....
For Middlebury College’s history department, the answer is plain: Not totally, and not always. The department banned students from using it as a source in their papers, although they are allowed to consult it for background material, a move that was quickly mimicked by professors at other schools, including UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania....
Just this year, a Wikipedia entry falsely proclaimed that the comedian Sinbad was dead. (“Saturday, I rose from the dead,” he said.) Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller sued last month to find out who anonymously posted, falsely, that he abused drugs. And a prolific and highly trusted contributor believed to be a professor was unmasked as a 24-year-old college dropout.

10 Questions: Jimmy Wales 3/21/07
How can I persuade my teachers to allow me to use Wikipedia as a legitimate research source?—Kaitlyn Grigsby, Medina, Ohio
I would agree with your teachers that that isn't the right way to use Wikipedia. The site is a wonderful starting point for research. But it's only a starting point because there's always a chance that there's something wrong, and you should check your sources if you are writing a paper.
time.com


One great source -- if you can trust it
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | July 12, 2004
"So of course Wikipedia is popular. Maybe too popular. For it lacks one vital feature of the traditional encyclopedia: accountability. Old-school reference books hire expert scholars to write their articles, and employ skilled editors to check and double-check their work. Wikipedia's articles are written by anyone who fancies himself an expert....

Ross admits to reading and enjoying Wikipedia, and has even gotten ideas there for future Britannica articles. But the absence of traditional editorial controls makes Wikipedia unsuited to serious research. "How do they know it's accurate?" Ross asks. "People can put down anything.""

See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign By John Borland 08.14.07
Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith -- offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of internet IP addresses....
"The online encyclopedia allows anyone to make edits, but keeps detailed logs of all these changes. Users who are logged in are tracked only by their user name, but anonymous changes leave a public record of their IP address....
Griffith thus downloaded the entire encyclopedia, isolating the XML-based records of anonymous changes and IP addresses. He then correlated those IP addresses with public net-address lookup services such as ARIN, as well as private domain-name data provided by IP2Location.com.
The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made.
Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material."
wired.com

Wikipedia and Beyond
Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision
Katherine Mangu-Ward | June 2007 Print Edition
"Wikipedia does fail sometimes. The most famous controversy over its accuracy boiled over when John Seigenthaler Sr., a former assistant to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, wrote about his own Wikipedia entry in a November 2005 USA Today op-ed. The entry on Seigenthaler included a claim that he had been involved in both Kennedy assassinations. "We live in a universe of new media," wrote Seigenthaler, "with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research-but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects." The false claim had been added to the entry as a prank in May 2005. When Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia about the error in October, Wales personally took the unusual step of removing the false allegations from the editing history on the page, wiping out the publicly accessible records of the error.
"Wikipedia's other major scandal hasn't been quite as easy for Wales to laugh off, because he was the culprit. In 2005 he was caught with his hand on the edit button, taking advantage of Wikipedia's open editing policy to remove Larry Sanger from the encyclopedia's official history of itself. There has been an ongoing controversy about Wales' attempts to edit his own Wikipedia entry, which is permitted but considered extremely bad form. After a round of negative publicity when the edits were discovered, Wales stopped editing his own profile. But in the site's discussion pages, using the handle "Jimbo Wales," he can be found trying to persuade others to make changes on this and other topics."
(reason.com)

The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders
By JR Raphael, PC World
Wikipedia is about to start restricting the editing of some of its articles. Judging by these past blunders, the change may not be a bad thing.

At the Wikipedia Bomis page
"Bomis is a dot-com company founded in 1996. Its primary business is the sale of advertising on the Bomis.com search portal. It was founded by Jimmy Wales and Tim Shell, and provided support for the free encyclopedia projects Nupedia and Wikipedia....
Bomis ran a website called Bomis Premium at premium.bomis.com until 2005, offering customers access to premium, X-rated[3] pornographic content."
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia has been well known for errors and problems.
(snip)
50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
|This article cites some or all of its references or sources without using hyperlinks, which may make the information harder to verify. If the sources are available online, as is often the case for newspapers and academic journals, please help improve this article by adding links to the citations.

Imbox_style.png
|This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.
 
Last edited:
TM, in case Earthborn's post was too subtle - if you don't find the information on Wikipedia accurate, you can always sign up and edit content yourself.
 
TM, in case Earthborn's post was too subtle - if you don't find the information on Wikipedia accurate, you can always sign up and edit content yourself.

But that's the problem - if I do find errors in things I know about how can I trust it on the things I know less about.

I regard it as being like a knowledgeable pal - useful to bounce a question off on any subject but if it's important I'll check he's right.
 

Back
Top Bottom