Is Wikipedia really so unreliable?

Madam_X

I don't know much about it tbh, hence asking the question, but doesn't it have fact-checking people, base its info on reliable sources to which it also links, etc?

I'd have thought that because it's deemed so unreliable, those running the show would be under extra pressure to allay such fears?

NegativeCreep

I don't know. I have one lecturer that lets us reference Wikipedia but the rest don't. Any information I've found seemed to be accurate enough and inaccurate information seems to be dealt with fairly quickly.

sky88

got me through 4 years of college so i think its great

awec

Like everywhere it's hit and miss. TBH I think it's grand for generally quoting on here, but I wouldn't be relying on it for anything official (like a thesis).

All content is community edited which has risks, it only employs like 140 people. The rest are all volunteers. It doesn't make money.

Mr X edits article on Giraffes on Monday and puts in incorrect information.

You go read it on the Tuesday, and take what you read as fact.

Mrs Y notices Mr X's edit on Wednesday and fixes it, removing the incorrect info.

Madam_X

awec wrote: »

Mr X edits article on Giraffes on Monday and puts in incorrect information.

You go read it on the Tuesday, and take what you read as fact.

Mrs Y notices Mr X's edit on Wednesday and fixes it, removing the incorrect info.

Thought the moderation would be quicker than that?

Sisko

University's hate it.

Research traditionally was always an important part of things but these days its so easy, a lot of the work is already done and a quick Google gets you the results it took them to get after hours/days/weeks back when they were all in University.

Imo its one of the top 2 most important websites on the internet. However i can understand the worry people would have of 100% completely depending on it.

BillyMitchel

Four years in college and we were never allowed to use it as a reference. Many times myself I've found information in it to be wrong.

Boombastic

If suspicious of the info, click the links it references...

awec

Madam_X wrote: »

Thought the moderation would be quicker than that?

Anyone can edit an article. There are millions of articles.

Not all articles are moderated, only high profile ones. The majority of articles rely on community based checks and balances (i.e. me and you noticing something is incorrect).

Peregrine

Madam_X wrote: »

Thought the moderation would be quicker than that?

Depends on the popularity of the article.

I've never actually come across hugely inaccurate info on it, some things could be biased but is quickly changed to politically correct terms and all. There is a "talk" section in every article, click it. It'll just show you how much volunteers actually contribute to the thread, changes are requested, debated etc.

Kinski

An article on a completely made-up colonial war managed to stay on Wikipedia for five years.

It has plenty of good articles, and is fine as a starting-point when delving into a new topic, but nobody should rely on it when conducting serious research, including writing essays for college.

nocoverart

Just search Wikipedia on Wikipedia and read it all whilst smoking a few spliffs, and see for yourself if you think Wikipedia is telling you the truth = Total Head Fook!

jjbrien

When i went to university they hated it but i found it easier to check the references of it. I did IT and most of the stuff was ok so long as the references checked out. But you could never tell when you got the stuff from wiki

awec

There are people who literally spend their spare time editing on Wikipedia as a hobby, the site relies on people like that. Not all of them add content, a lot of them just tidy things up and fix layouts etc.

Personally I love the site, read it multiple times a day. All sorts of random stuff.

Seachmall

It's solid to give you an overall understanding of the topic but in terms of specific claims on it you should make sure they're sourced and, if you're really interested, do some research on your own.

I will say I've found it to be more accurate than not, and undoubtedly more accurate than some of the teachers and lecturers I've had. It's the first place I go when first learning about a something.

matrim

Normally it will be fine but because it can be edited by anyone at any time if you reference it for something official, your reference could be gone when someone looks for it or you could have made the edit yourself.

In saying the above it's a great starting point when you want to start looking something up. Read the wiki page, get an overview then follow the wikipedia references to find more information on the particular subject.

If you're doing a Thesis or official document that doesn't accept wikipeida references it's not hard to follow the reference on wikipedia and then use that as your reference instead of the wiki page.

RDM_83 again

Its a damn useful resource and I've even used in a professional role to look up administrative areas* etc but it can;t be relied upon for anything that your going to reference.

A good thing to do is to check out the Talk part of the page so you can see the edits and whats been put in or removed and what people are disagreeing on. Its also less reliable for anything thats controversial in the modern day e.g Israel Additionally just because there's links and references it doesn;t mean that those references actually say whats in the article though I've only noticed this a handful of times. In short I think its reliable for stuff thats "provable" e.g the sciences and less reliable for things like history archaeology where there's multiple interpretations

* Though i did once end up a gay porn website after clicking on a external link about Cantons

Gbear

It's good at getting lots of information in one place. It's pretty easy to go down to the sources and see where they're getting their information from.

If the source is a scientific journal or a university press then it's grand.

It's pretty much the same as any amalgamation of sources. For academic purposes you'd really want to be checking the sources cited in any reading material and not just taking it on faith unless it was specifically recommended to you by your lecturer.

I remember reading a New Scientist article suggesting that it had a pretty favourable accuracy rate when compared to things like Encyclopedia Britannica on health-related matters.

jill_valentine

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as a published encyclopedia (remember them?), and often has the advantage because it can be more up to date. There are errors and spoofs, yes, but it's surprisingly accurate given its scale and those cases are the exception rather than the rule.

A great starting point. No more no less.

kraggy

Remember this? A journalist from the Guardian no less.

http://www.herald.ie/news/ucd-student-hoodwinked-world-on-wikipedia-27910943.html

stevek93

Wikipedia is the only website that is wrong. Had a assignment in college not to long ago for anyone who is familiar with computers we were asked to install
a network card inside a pc fairly simple task found some the quotes on this website rather amusing http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-install-a-network-adapter-in-your-computer.html

nocoverart

awec wrote: »

There are people who literally spend their spare time editing on Wikipedia as a hobby, the site relies on people like that. Not all of them add content, a lot of them just tidy things up and fix layouts etc.

Personally I love the site, read it multiple times a day. All sorts of random stuff.

I love it too! for some weird reason I have a bit of an obsession with Siberia and Russia in general, and Wikipedia clears up the complexed geography of it all for me. Even though I still feel a bit confuzzled about that confusing place, kinda like I don't know if I'm combing my hair or tying my shoelaces.

Jordan 199

I find it a great site for getting Formula 1 info

Scar Tissue

A lot of the college notes provided to us are ripped straight from Wikipedia, so I f*cking hope so.

Either that, or our lecturer's kindly upload their completely original notes to Wikipedia... ahem

sock puppet

Sisko wrote: »

University's hate it.

Research traditionally was always an important part of things but these days its so easy, a lot of the work is already done and a quick Google gets you the results it took them to get after hours/days/weeks back when they were all in University.

That's not the reason really. Most lecturers would encourage the use of Google Scholar for example.

Grayson

Seachmall wrote: »

It's solid to give you an overall understanding of the topic but in terms of specific claims on it you should make sure they're sourced and, if you're really interested, do some research on your own.

I will say I've found it to be more accurate than not, and undoubtedly more accurate than some of the teachers and lecturers I've had. It's the first place I go when first learning about a something.

Was just about to say that. When I'm researching Wikipedia will always give me a good overview. It's pretty much always accurate. But i know I can never use it as a source. So i check it first to get my head around the topic and then start getting other sources i can cite.

I actually donated 5 dollars to them today when i was reading up for an essay. After 3 years of college they're worth every penny

Grayson

stevek93 wrote: »

Wikipedia is the only website that is wrong. Had a assignment in college not to long ago for anyone who is familiar with computers we were asked to install
a network card inside a pc fairly simple task found some the quotes on this website rather amusing http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-install-a-network-adapter-in-your-computer.html

Pull it out, shove it in. That's pretty much it.

Gbear

Grayson wrote: »

Pull it out, shove it in. That's pretty much it.

Tools required: Hammer, cheese knife.

kowloon

At the very least it's a good place to start if you're reading up on something. It can give you bad information but usually it gives you the popular view and some links that get you started.
Science topics, computing and other tech are usually accurate enough. I think it gets more bad press than it deserves.

callaway92

For checking up Sports Player' stats (boxing records, goals pg etc) it is very useful.

orestes

Seachmall wrote: »

It's solid to give you an overall understanding of the topic but in terms of specific claims on it you should make sure they're sourced and, if you're really interested, do some research on your own.

I will say I've found it to be more accurate than not, and undoubtedly more accurate than some of the teachers and lecturers I've had. It's the first place I go when first learning about a something.

Pretty much exactly the way I'd think of it too. I use it a lot recently after getting interested in history, it's damned useful for getting a general understanding of something or to cross-reference details - commissioned by King Geoffrey XVI, which one was that again? *check wiki* ah right - great grandson of King Jeremy the XIV, damned chronology, if you're all gonna marry your cousins at least vary the names a bit *check wiki*.

It's like having a pretty reliable and readily available index system on almost anything you can think of so that you know what you're looking for when you go to the library to really read up on a subject. If I were using it for actual research purposes I'd just use it to find out what journals to look up on a college database.

humbert

Because anybody can edit it it's susceptible to egregious errors, more so than established encyclopaedias, but because it's reviewed by such a huge audience it's very reliable in general.

I'm too lazy to find a link but I seem to remember it coming up trumps against Britannica on accuracy.

orestes

humbert wrote: »

I'm too lazy to find a link but I seem to remember it coming up trumps against Britannica on accuracy.

I've actually got a full set of Encyclopedia Britannica. According to them there's still two Germanys.

humbert

orestes wrote: »

I've actually got a full set of Encyclopedia Britannica. According to them there's still two Germanys.

Haha, I think there's a set of a similar vintage in the parent's house.

Queen-Mise

Madam_X wrote: »

Thought the moderation would be quicker than that?

It isn't 'moderated' the way here would be for example. Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia.
Seemingly it is most accurate in places where, white nerdy males have the most interest:rolleyes:

Wikipedia is generally fairly accurate. I see the odd thing that is dodgy but usually pretty ok. As long as you don't refer to it in 3rd level work.

Sisko wrote: »

University's hate it.

Research traditionally was always an important part of things but these days its so easy, a lot of the work is already done and a quick Google gets you the results it took them to get after hours/days/weeks back when they were all in University.

University's don't like it, not because of the research aspect, but because it is not peer reviewed. It isn't the web part that is the problem. Things can be published quite erroneously on Wikipedia as it is entirely reliant on another web user to see it, to review and update - they are no editors/publishers etc.




Another anecdote on Wikipedia the pages on Palestine and Israel have been completely locked down. It is not longer possible for community members to edit those pages.
When they were open, a pro-Palestine person would edit to show Israel as the devil nation. The following day a pro-Israel person would edit to show all Palestinians as being devil people.:D [I mean devil in their bias]
The pages on both now are entirely factual with as little bias as possible.

Capt'n Midnight

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/3D_glasses

Oranage2

Well you dont really rely on Wiki for anything so that answers the answer.

Does it really matter if Pat Kenny was or wasnt the first man to the North Pole?

A Primal Nut

I like the site and tends to be incredibly accurate...more than I'd expect and I'm often surprised by how the articles aren't as biased as you'd expect user generated content to be.

As for using it for university thesis and so on; obviously I wouldn't Wikipedia itself but if you do find useful information on there, check the references to see where the information came from and use that instead. Although if you are going to use a book, make sure you at least looked at the book!

Wacker The Attacker

sky88 wrote: »

got me through 4 years of college so i think its great

Did you get past first year?

Tombi!

People sometimes "patrol" the recent edits page, which lists a bunch of edits made in the last while and will check them out to see if they're correct or not.

It's great if you just want to find things out.
It's not ideal for anything in school if you're using it as a source. It's good for a jumping off point and you might find out more than you would if you just got a few books (since there are so many links to other pages). That's it, though.
I'd never think about taking anything from Wikipedia as fact if it can't be found on other, more reliable* sites.

*I only say other sites are more reliable because Wikipedia is edited by people. Some of the more obscure pages might go days (or months or years) with incorrect information.

osarusan

My friend and Used to play a game called 'six degrees of wikipedia'. The idea is to choose two unconnected things (each choose one so it will be truly random) and then go to the wiki page for one of those things. The game is to see who can get to the other page in the least amount of clicks on wiki pages in between.

So one of us would choose....sunglasses, and the other chose....popcorn. Go to the sunglasses page, look for the linked page most likely to get you to the popcorn page.

Only rules were:

no using the pages of countries or similar geographical/political bodies, because it's just too easy to go to the page for USA, or Europe, and work from there.

no using the 'other links' at the bottom of most pages.




Good times were had.

Jacksquat

I think it's a great site to start learning about anything and I use it all the time. It's true that there are people that like to vandalise pages but I think there are more that want the information to be correct, so they are usually fixed pretty quick.

rubadub

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Depends on the popularity of the article.

+1, also depends on how likely the people involved in the subject are to correct stuff, and know it, and word it correctly. e.g. the "big bang theory" tv show page might be as popular as "peppa pig", but if I bet the BBT is meticulously scrutinized.

On some technical pages I would have issues but it is sometimes semantics, or not being perfectly clear. Some other subjects are very lacking, but no more lacking than most encyclopedia entries are on the subject, missing stuff you would see discussed in forums in the last 10 years.

Manic Moran

I've found a number of errors in Wiki when involved in my work as a military historian.

There are two other problems.

1) The more related to current events or politics, the less reliable Wiki is. The Israel/Palestine thing is mentioned above, but also other politics as well.
2) Revolutionary or 'newly discovered' things are not given weight if they go against established common knowledge. One will see this outside of Wiki as well (Ask me about my Tank Destroyer doctrine fight one day), but if something gets repeated often enough by published authors, it becomes 'truth' in Wiki. Even if everyone is wrong. The quote from this article is telling.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/

"I hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies, such as verifiability and undue weight. If all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write 'Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky was blue.' ... As individual editors, we're not in the business of weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write."