Comments on: How much do you trust Wikipedia?

the buzz Readers weigh in on reports that Wikipedia entries are too easily tampered with to be reliable.

Why now?

I can't believe the accuracy of Wikipedia's articles are just now being called into question...

[Mark Morrill]

Trust?

Trust is odd when it comes to a source of information. Every
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.

http://mutantjedi.blogspot.com/2005/12/wikipedia.html

[Mark Donovan]

Trust and credibility

I agree. Inaccuracy and bias are not unique to Wikipedia. As other comments have noted, hardcover encyclopedias are equally guilty of misinformation. Wikipedia is unique in that there's a public forum for complaints and public comments that's not available for the hardcover variety.

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?

[Roman12]

Wikipedia is cool

I like the idea of wiki, and I've made contributions. However, I would rather turn to other sources when serious reaserch is required.
__________________________________
R.K.
http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/

More than I trust the corporate media

Wait. I don't trust Wikipedia. I trust most of the articles that I go to Wikipedia looking for. What, exactly, were the countries involved, and the issues involved in the Thirty Years War? What was the Sokal affair again? Do I have post-modernism right? Who were George Gershwin's lyricists? What was the connection between Gurdjieff and Madame Blavatsky?

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 http://richard.blumberg.org/2005/12/04/what-do-you-know-for-sure/

Richard

[Derek Parnell]

These views are not new

I've had a few times now where I've had discussions about the futility of Wikipedia, in as much as it contains inaccuracies and any attempt to fix them can just be removed by the 'next' person. So why bother fixing things and in fact, why bother using it all!?

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.

[slave2reason]

Not at All

It is rife with error. Amateur editors vary widely in talent and knowledge, but mediocrity nearly always prevails at Wikipediaby the very nature of the open editing process, where consensus of opinion is valued over knowledge about the subject matter. Most troubling of all, there is no accountability, given the anonymity of nearly all of the editors. Vile, untrue, and sometimes libelous comments are made about real, living people. Even though such matters are often removed from the main articles themselves, they persist on various discussion pages, and they are replicated throughout the internet on numerous mirror sites. Wikipedia should not be used as a legitimate source for research. If it has any use at all, it would be to prompt further research. However, I think its disadvantages far outweigh its merits and that its founder should cancel his experiment and return to the original plan he invisioned with Nupedia, which relied on expert editors who were not anonymous.

wikipedia is great

I often look to wikipedia for some definitions, historical event and Information.
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 :)

[ciropabon]

A voice from the past

"The French Encyclopédie had been accused, and justly accused, of having disseminated far and wide the seeds of anarchy and atheism. If the Encyclopaedia Britannica shall in any degree counteract the tendency of that pestiferous work, even these two volumes will not be wholly unworthy of your Majesty's attention."

I wonder if attacks on Wikipedia are a reminiscence of this very old quotation.

[sevanthson]

Like a Friend...

I treat Wiki like a knowledgeable friend. Someone who knows a lot
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?!?!?!

You have to be kidding?

No...I trust very little I find on the Internet.

Wikipedia is worthless

Most entries are drowning in obvious bias. Wikipedia is an
interesting time waster but not much more.

[ReyBrujo]

Wikipedia is not really about truth

As a Wikipedia contributor, we are requested to follow some guidelines and official policies. One of those is the WP:V, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth , where it states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." In other words, if you have a source from a relatively known source which isn't likely to lie, you can include it.

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.

[subwayjack]

I agree with one exception

What you you find there is verifiable information, NOT FACTS! It has
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!

[kaiwen1]

Wikipedia is fantastic - just be selective

Wikipedia is far more informative and useful than any other encyclopedia in existence. The vast majority of information presented is correct, expert and useful. But, because of it's open nature, the whole thing should carry a User Beware sign. After researching something in Wikipedia, it might be necessary to corroborate the findings elsewhere. Wikipedia's value is enormous. To throw insults at it demonstrates a complete lack of logical thinking.

I just used it for an undergrad paper on Sikhism!

Hi,

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

[KLNobles]

Undergrad citations

Although your paper might have been very good, it is still better to use Wikopedia only as a jumping off point, as many schools will not accept it as a valid academic resource. Use it to give you keywords or concepts for better references.

[driftwolf]

Wikipedia is the dumbing down of knowledge.

Wikipedia is not a "peer reviewed" publication, and is therefore suspect as a source of any valid information. Anyone putting a well researched article on there is not being reviewed by peers, but by a group of anonymous editors with questionable pedigrees and even more questionable agendas.

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.

[ssme]

THE EARTH IS FLAT ...

... this is what Wikipedia would say about Earth, if it existed 600 years ago, that is.

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.

[Derek Parnell]

Improving verses complaining

> THE EARTH IS FLAT ... this is what Wikipedia
> 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.

[tbc0]

Wikipedia can be corrected, unlike bonehead statements made elsewhere

See, for example, "Wikipedia springs into action after M&G Online article" [1]. On the other hand, this message board won't even let people modify their postings. How quaint. How Web 1.0. How very 20th century.

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] http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=256606&area=/insight/insight_tech/
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Chambers/Wikipedia_configuration_management
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_on_CD/DVD

[dlc3007]

Still trust Wiki

Wikipedia is as or more trust worthy than any other source of information on the internet. Is it perfect? Nope. Neither is the Encyclopedia Britanica, the New York Times, CNN, or USA Today. Just like every other reference source used for research, facts should be verified from multiple sources. I?m sorry, but it doesn?t take a genius to figure this out.

I?m 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 don?t really know or care who John Seigenthaler is, nor would I now if he wasn?t 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 didn?t 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 he?s best known for making a stink about on-line encyclopedias.

[Earl Benser]

There is nothing to trust......

.... Wikipedia is a constantly changing compendium of popular
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.....

[tbc0]

Your theory is valid, but practice proves you wrong.

Yes, anyone can change an article. However, the change history is *not* changeable, so there's an audit trail. In practice, people almost always change articles to make them better. So your generalization is misguided. Some articles will have errors, but most of the information is trustworthy. Just don't trust it as your only source.

[Lance Peterson]

Good Stuff

I use it all the time and it is awesome. There is potential for inacurracies in any dictionary, but the overall quality of the writing in Wikipedia has been high.