Manage updates with the Download App
How much do you trust Wikipedia?
The concept of "collective knowledge" is often lauded as the next step toward truth in online media. But recent scuffles over inaccuracies in Wikipedia entries call into question the reliability of the medium. Some scathing press and ongoing abuses of the site's open format caused Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales to limit the article submission process. But doubts about whether these changes will mean more accurate entries are still circulating. Do you consider Wikipedia a trusted source of factual information? Share your thoughts in our TalkBack section.
Cracks show in community-driven encyclopedia
Growing pains for Wikipedia
CNET News.com
A false Wikipedia 'biography'
USA Today
Who owns your Wikipedia bio?
The Register
Adam Curry gets podbusted
CNET News.com
Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability?
CNET News.com
Perspective: Wikipedia and the nature of truth
CNET News.com
Transcript of Jimmy Wales and John Seigenthaler on CNN
Wikipedia
Wikipedia is the next Google
WebProNews
Why Wikipedia isn't like Linux
The Register
Wikipedia: the dawn of democratic media?
eGov Monitor
Can you trust Wikipedia?
Mail & Guardian Online
Wikibooks takes on textbook industry
CNET News.com
How wikis are changing our view of the world
CNET News.com
Esquire wikis article on Wikipedia
CNET News.com
Boy brings encyclopaedia to book
BBC News
Newsmaker: Open-sourcing the news
CNET News.com
Related video:
What is a wiki?
Joe Kraus, CEO, JotSpot
Is business waking up to wiki?
John Seely Brown, co-author of the recently-released The Only Sustainable Edge, and Socialtext CEO Ross Mayfield discuss the emerging role of the wiki in the evolution of corporate collaboration.
Wiki while you work
Learn about the corporate wiki, an editable Web site designed for quick and easy group project management.
Getting 'wiki' with the team
Wiki users and experts offer insight on implementing a wiki at work and getting staff and management to accept the technology.
source is coloured by its bias. Ask a source about the origins of
the universe. Its answer will depend on its religious,
philosophical, and scientific bias. How about something simple -
why is the sky blue? How many different answers can you
imagine when you put the questions to different sources - a
scientist, an artist, or a child.
The strength as a source for wikipedias is its fluid democracy. I
can't edit a CNET story. I can't correct any errors in the 30 year
old encyclopedias sitting on my bookshelf. And if I add pages to
that dusty tomb, it just looks silly.
As for trust, wikipedia is just another flavor of bias. But at least
it can be edited.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://mutantjedi.blogspot.com/2005/12/wikipedia.html" target="_newWindow">http://mutantjedi.blogspot.com/2005/12/wikipedia.html</a>
Yes, Wikipedia's greatest feature may be that it's easily corrected! Wikipedia's edit history is also a unique and powerful feature that helps its credibility.
One failing of many Wikipedia articles is the lack of well-researched bibliographical or source data. Good source data improves credibility and can resolve many of the complaints of bias and opinionated "facts." Wikipedia should more strongly encourage submissions that include references to source material.
Still, the ultimate value of any source of information is that it is credible, accurate and verifiable. But, disregarding the usefulness of a easily-searched, cross-referenced, and free (!) reference resource is rather narrow-minded, don't you think?
__________________________________
R.K.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/</a>
Wandering the web, I find lots of stuff that I don't know, don't remember well, or am pretty sure that I've got wrong. Wikipedia's just great for setting me straight with that kind of stuff. If it's a subject about which I sense controversy (and wandering the web tunes your controversy sensors pretty good), then Wikipedia is only one step in the research, and I'll use it more as a source of links than as an authority. I'm glad to see the subject coming up, and I'm glad to see that Wikipedia is responding so quickly, so undefensively, and so appropriately. It was pretty good early on; it's gotten real good by now; and it's going to keep getting better - richer in content, more complete and more authoritative, and more resistant to being gamed by ideologues and ego-trippers.
I've posted my take on the recent news on my blog, at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://richard.blumberg.org/2005/12/04/what-do-you-know-for-sure/" target="_newWindow">http://richard.blumberg.org/2005/12/04/what-do-you-know-for-sure/</a>
Richard
My position is that I use it daily and have very rarely seen inaccuracies (that matter). It is just another source and if you are doing serious research one always uses multiple, independant sources before deciding what is 'truth' or not.
And I think that fixing entries can only improve things, even if occassionally it provokes a debate. Once I fixed something only to be shown later that I was in fact wrong. So both I and Wikipedia benefitted.
What I don't understand about the bad data in the biography that kicked off this round, is why didn't the guy just fix it up when he found it to be wrong.
I trust wikipedia and why not? Do you want us to trust web sites whose authers are not know?
I would prefer to check wikipedia where some of contents are updated by myself :)
I wonder if attacks on Wikipedia are a reminiscence of this very old quotation.
about a lot, but not everything about everything. And they happen
to be wrong on occasion.
If honest research is being conducted, then multiple sources
should always be used. If inconsistencies are found in more reliable
sources, the researcher should take it upon themselves to update
the Wiki, thereby allowing the next reader to find more accurate
information. Isn't that the whole point of Wiki anyway?!?!?!
interesting time waster but not much more.
Wikipedia doesn't hold the truth. Only the facts and links to how to verify the information. I use the Wikipedia as a quick guide, to learn what is something about, and then use the cited References to expand.
This is something many wikipedians and non-wikipedians get confused. What you find there are just verifiable facts which may or may not be true.
to be published via newspaper, magazine, etc. Even web pages can
be used like rotten.com or other pages that may have pornographic
content, shock value information or any other host of bad
information as long as it is VERIFIABLE. If Henry Ford himself came
back and wrote an entry as to why he decided to mass produce
automobiles, an administrator would edit out the info as "original
research". Don't believe me, try putting your personal info there!
Just last night, I turned in a paper in my Asian philosophy class covering the basics of Sikhism. I proudly used Wikpedia as one of my resources -- I also used two other websites and two books. Wikipedia's article on Sikhism was accurate, at least according to my other sources.
It's funny... we had to do a synopsis of our papers for the class, and one of my classmates also chose Sikhism for her report. While she was presenting to the class, the teacher had to interrupt her presentation because she said (and wrote in her paper) that Sikhism is a combination of Hinduism and Buddhism -- in reality it is a combo of Hinduism and Islam.
Anyway, my point is that Wikipedia gave me a quick and accurate picture of Sikhism that I then used to research the topic further in books and other websites. NO source is 100% accurate and the only way to keep from getting the wrong information is to THINK during the research process!
rawbertow
Wikipedia is more of a rumour mill than a valid scholarly resource. The anonymous editing, the revert wars, and the "in" people choosing popularity over correctness of content makes it more of a sideshow circus than what it purports to be.
To put it more bluntly, anyone using Wikipedia as a scholarly reference in any form of researched paper is a fool. Wikipedia is a form of entertainment, not a trustworthy repository of knowledge.
Wikipedia is NOT about truth or facts, it is about what PEOPLE think is true or factual - "democratic knowledge".
For mundane stuff or common knowledge or high school level projects - it's ok.
> would say about Earth, if it existed 600 years
> ago, that is.
As would also say the respected information sources of the day.
> Wikipedia is NOT about truth or facts, it is
> about what PEOPLE think is true or factual -
> "democratic knowledge".
Which is the same for any such tome. How long was Aristole's views held to be truth by the educated world?
> For mundane stuff or common knowledge or high
> school level projects - it's ok.
This statement seems to imply that intellectual plebians do not deserve high levels of accuracy.
I imagine that for each example of inaccurate article you could show me from Wikipedia, I could find both an accurate one from Wikipedia and an inaccurate one from academia.
Neither Wikipedia or academia constantly produce flawless or unbiased articles. Get over it and instead of complaining, fix things where ever they are found.
What I don't get is the attidute that upon finding an inaccurate sentence in a Wikipedia article, the finder then states that therefore the entire article is wrong. Instead of such subtle self-promotion, the finder of these mistakes should just humbly fix them and be prepared to justify the fix if need be.
Wikipedia is simply amazaing. But as much as some contributors and project champions would like it to be an encyclopedia, it is, first and foremost, a wiki. That can change easily. Snapshots could be taken of reviewed articles and published as a pretty interesting encyclopedia. I was one of a few who tried to get the ball rolling [2], but it's taking a while. [3]
[1] <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=256606&area=/insight/insight_tech/" target="_newWindow">http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=256606&area=/insight/insight_tech/</a>
[2] <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Chambers/Wikipedia_configuration_management" target="_newWindow">http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Chambers/Wikipedia_configuration_management</a>
[3] <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_on_CD/DVD" target="_newWindow">http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_on_CD/DVD</a>
Im sorry that some old man is upset about Wikipedia. Was the posting intentionally malicious? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps the author was misinformed. Maybe they got their information from another publication.
I dont really know or care who John Seigenthaler is, nor would I now if he wasnt throwing a hissy-fit. Since this is Wikipedia, he should have simply corrected the entry himself and made a note in the talk section. Then others would have been on the look-out for the incorrect information and made sure it didnt get back in.
Of course, maybe he just wanted the additional attention created by making a lot of noise in the media. I guess someone should add to his biography and point out that hes best known for making a stink about on-line encyclopedias.
opinion. It can be interesting reading, but Wikipedia is not any
sort of credible reference source. The simple fact that any
person at any time for any reason can edit any article in any way
simply destroys the concept of credibility for Wikipedia. There is
no doubt that most Wikipedia articles are probably is close to
accurate most of the time, but 'most articles' and 'most of the
time' are the reasons Wikipedia is not trustworthy. You never
know where or when the errors exist.
I don't know that Wikipedia could exist in any other form. IT's
premise is excellent, in a perfect world. Users would ensure that
every article would evolve into highly accurate content. But, this
is not a perfect world, and any evolution toward accuracy is
more accidental than deliberate.
So consider Wikipedia to be an interesting artifact of the Internet
Age. Read it for what it is. But trust it???? Yeah, like a used car
salesman.....
And to back up their claim, they choose ONE feedback post from here that asserts the inaccuracy of wikipedia articles -- with NO examples, no attempt to quantify the percentages of anything except gossip and heresay.
This article is op-ed garbage. Wikipedia isn't perfect (whoever said it was?). But when I compare the many articles on Wikipedia to the same subjects in (say) MS Encarta, I'll take wikipedia any time.
The agenda here, of course, is that any attempts to create a community that might just displace a revenue source with free and accurate information for all is inherently bad. Bad, that is, for MS (bye, bye Encarta), and for cnet (hey, all our readers can check up on us when we BS them!).
--Tim
The arrogance of so many who denounce the tool as being 'mediocre' are just caught up in their own self-importance. Come on, let's face it...most of them are worried that when people start formulating ideas for theselves & expresisng them in an open forum, they won't be as likely to run to the 'experts' (who are more than happy to charge them) every time they need to think outside their own boxes. God forbid we consider views that may outside of the mainstream... why, that could almost be democratic!
If you don't believe in it, don't use it. It's that simple.