Have you read Wikipedia much?

I disagree. Too many articles seem to change based on which group is posting today.Th best example is the article on Stalin. There seems to be a hard core of Stalin Apologists who try to rewrite ANY criticism of Stalin.
 
Here's information on Wikipedia accuracy problems:

http://nowherenorth.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/accuracy-wikipedia-encyclopedias/

"Okay, this study was published in early 2008 but I didn’t discovered it until recently. “Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles” by Lycy Holman Rector published in Reference Services Review vol. 36, häfte 1, 2008, s. 7-22.

Nine Wikipedia articles, only historical entries, were compared against articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online to compare Wikipedia’s accuracy. and the conclusions as expressed by Holman Rector:

“Wikipedia’s accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources”."


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insig...150B834?contentType=Article&contentId=1674221
Findings – The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations.


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insig...hed/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2400360102.pdf
Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in
historical articles Lucy Holman Rector Library & Instructional Resources, Harford Community
"Most reference works rely on scholars to write and edit their articles and essays.
Wikipedia, however, allows anyone to contribute and edit encyclopedia entries. In fact,
Wikipedia welcomes amateur contributors and notes that no formal training is required
for posting an entry (Wikipedia, 2007). Unlike other reference sources, individual
Wikipedia entries do not list authors’ full or even real names, and authors do not post
their credentials in terms of expertise in the field of their contributions. Without full
disclosure of authorship, readers cannot verify the expertise of the author or even
conduct further research on his/her credentials. Furthermore, while Wikipedia
encourages authors to cite references, it realizes that many articles do not include
sources (Wikipedia, 2007). The encyclopedia readily admits that there are certainly
opportunities for vandalism, and the lack of an editorial board or governing process
may result in under-coverage of certain topics."
 
I use Wikipedia all the time, it is a quick and easy reference source that most people can get some knowledge from. The hyperlinks in the text make it easier to also look at referenced terms or concepts you might not be familiar with. The most useful aspect I find are the links to cited reference papers.

On the subject of changes I had quoted part of a Wikipedia article to help make a point in another thread. In just over 12 hours or so (before the next post on that thread) the article had been changed to delete the part I had quoted and that was the only part of the article that had been changed. It was little more then a simple inconvenience for me though as the reference paper that was still cited, even after the editing, said the same thing and I simply quoted that when what I had quoted suddenly disappeared. However the editing did tend to obscure that key point of that paper referenced in that particular part of the article. That is the worst consideration for me, that the article is no longer as accurately representative of the cited paper perhaps simply because I had quoted it is some thread.
 
I remember an edit war initiated by at least one ardent skeptic with several accounts on the topic of NLP, which for a time managed to have the article claim that every method employed by NLP-ers is completely ineffective, and at the same time that NLP is a dangerous mind control tool employed for the purpose of indoctrination by various cults.

I usually read the discussion page too, when looking up topics. It doesn't tell you much about the accuracy, but it often gives good insight into the state of the disagreement.
 
Molinaro said:
  1. 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?
  2. Have you read the entry for your home town?
  3. Have you read the entry for your home country?
  4. Have you read the entry for your country's capital?
  5. Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?
  6. Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?
  7. Have you edited an article?
  8. Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?
  9. Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?
  10. Have you read an article about a religion?
Click to expand...
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. I think so.
  5. No and no.
  6. Yes and yes.
  7. Yes.
  8. Yes.
  9. Yes, yes and yes.
  10. Yes.
 
Wikipedia keeps logs of edits and has various levels of ‘protection’, which they can use to block people from editing articles on controversial or delicate subjects. Just because a subject is controversial doesn’t necessarily mean that articles covering it will be inaccurate or biased. It’s also a matter of how much attention the article is getting and how easy it is to find good sources of information.
 
thinkingman said:
Here's information on Wikipedia accuracy problems:
Click to expand...

You've tried to make one paper seem like three and the paper itself says "Certainly this research is too limited in scope to make broad generalizations about the credibility and authority of Wikipedia entries."

Unlike other reference sources, individual Wikipedia entries do not list authors’ full or even real names, and authors do not post their credentials in terms of expertise in the field of their contributions.
Click to expand...

Neither do most encyclopedias. Britianica will advertise it's headline names but the journalists and libarians who wrote the bulk of things like biographies of mildly notetable 19th century people not so much.

and the lack of an editorial board or governing process may result in under-coverage of certain topics."
Click to expand...

There is little evidence that an editorial board adresses that problem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom