Wikipedia...HUH?

[+ Lucky]

There are many things I do not understand, especially when it comes to computers and the like, but Wikipedia escapes me. As I understand it, anyone can write an entry and anyone can edit it. How does that then respect the original entry? And who is to say what is accurate or not? If I write an entry, anyone can come along and change the information I wrote?

How does Brett Corrigan or Bryan Kocis rate an entry, as cited here last week? Maybe the Wikipedia police have already stepped in as they have with this Slate writer:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/?GT1=9129

[Lookin]

I like Wikipedia for its scope. With 1,659,958 articles as of a few minutes ago, it’s the largest encyclopedia ever assembled and the only one I know of with an entry on Brent Corrigan, including a current picture of his hot little self:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Brent2006.jpg

 

But, as you say, accuracy is sometimes questionable, and facts that are important to you need to be checked. The good news is you’ll at least have some facts to start checking.

 

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about Wikipedia:

 

“Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy have been questioned. The site has also been criticised for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies, and for favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process. Wikipedia's content policies and sub-projects set up by contributors seek to address these concerns. Two scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived and that Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as other online encyclopedias.“

 

“Wikipedia's philosophy is that unmoderated collaboration among well-meaning, informed editors will gradually improve the encyclopedia in its breadth, depth and accuracy, and that, given enough time, the truth will win out and even subtle errors will be caught and corrected. Thus, Wikipedia allows almost anyone to edit, except for users banned for persistent malfeasance after a lengthy arbitration process. Similarly, almost every article can be edited; editing is sometimes temporarily disabled for a small number of articles due to persistent vandalism or unresolved disputes among contributors. Wikipedia has not declared any of its articles "complete" or "finished".”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

[Karl-G]

Accuracy of Wikipedia

 

I like the Wikipedia; it is a first source for investigating almost anything/everything. But you must be careful and cross-check if you want to be very accurate.

 

Studies have shown that Wikipedia has 3 errors for every 2 in Encyclopedia Britannica, but that is awfully good! Most people assume the EB is totally accurate - false! It has lots of errors.

 

Vandalism can be a problem, although I found it for the first time this week. I looked up "Michael Flatley" of Riverdance. The entry was generally informative until I got to the line, "but he was recently humped to death in a zoo by an animal that didn't like Irish dancing." I assume someone will fix that shortly. Political entries are notorious for vandalism and are often locked.

 

I have written several articles which have been edited/corrected/added to by others, and all the additions were worthwhile and valuable. I learned from watching, and I assume others learned also. I sometimes edit articles on topics about which I know a lot.

 

Many topics are not covered in the EB, but Wikipedia is truly ecumenical - anything that anyone cares about can be included. There is a board which must approve any new topic, so not ANYTHING goes. But there is nothing like Wikipedia.

[+ deej]

RE: Accuracy of Wikipedia

 

>I like the Wikipedia; it is a first source for investigating

>almost anything/everything. But you must be careful and

>cross-check if you want to be very accurate.

 

You just pretty much nailed it. Wikipedia is a great place to start your research, but it isn't a substitute for actual research.

[+ nycman]

RE: Accuracy of Wikipedia

 

>"Michael Flatley" of Riverdance.

>The entry was generally informative until I got to the line,

>"but he was recently humped to death in a zoo by an animal

>that didn't like Irish dancing."

 

I'm laughing so hard I'm crying......

 

...thanks I needed that...lol