Wikipedia: Do you edit?

Elmo

Just wonder if people edit Wikipedia?

Newsnight had an item on about people leaving the site.

Kevster

Wikipedia countered that claim themselves though (Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8382477.stm). I have to admit though that I edited my first two Wikipedia articles the other day because I knew that they were wrong. I normally wouldn't bother, but since I've started a PhD I've developed a critical outlook on things of this nature.

auerillo

Kevster wrote: »

Wikipedia countered that claim themselves though (Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8382477.stm). I have to admit though that I edited my first two Wikipedia articles the other day because I knew that they were wrong. I normally wouldn't bother, but since I've started a PhD I've developed a critical outlook on things of this nature.

That's the problem with wikipedia - it's unreliable and often incorrect.

mike65

Occasionally in the past, but not a for a long time.

Elmo

auerillo wrote: »

That's the problem with wikipedia - it's unreliable and often incorrect.

But surely you should to insure that what you know about it correct and referenced.

billy the squid

The citation section of wikipedia articles is the most useful part of the site. The main body of the site is unreliable.

auerillo

Elmo wrote: »

But surely you should to insure that what you know about it correct and referenced.

Surely?

My point is that, as a reference resource its unreliable and , thus, pretty useless. My changing bits of it wouldn't change that.

Elmo

auerillo wrote: »

Surely?

My point is that, as a reference resource its unreliable and , thus, pretty useless. My changing bits of it wouldn't change that.

But surely if every one did edit and correct the reference it would make it better. Some of the articles are sketchy and you can rate the articles in terms of facts and research etc.

surely: this is a informal message boards (AFAIK)

You would be good at correcting the problems on Wiki. (Sorry Wikipedia).

auerillo

Elmo wrote: »

But surely if every one did edit and correct the reference it would make it better. Some of the articles are sketchy and you can rate the articles in terms of facts and research etc.

surely: this is a informal message boards (AFAIK)

You would be good at correcting the problems on Wiki. (Sorry Wikipedia).

I live in the real world! Everyone doesn't edit. How do you propose to make sure they do? And , even if they do, how can we be sure its accurate?

Wiki is an unreliable reference source.

Elmo

auerillo wrote: »

I live in the real world! Everyone doesn't edit. How do you propose to make sure they do? And , even if they do, how can we be sure its accurate?

Wiki is an unreliable reference source.

referendum haha I find wiki a good starting point if you want so quick information after that it is about looking at other sources. But then I don't trust everything on the internet.

lostexpectation

billy the squid wrote: »

The citation section of wikipedia articles is the most useful part of the site. The main body of the site is unreliable.

theyre the same thing

show me something thats wrong, wikipedia isn't just the top of the page it the whole page including the sources, wikipedia is not a source.

i find too hard to edit, too hard to change something you need to discuss with others to change