Wikipedia

astroron (Ron) · #1 10-03-2009, 08:33 PM

Wikipedia is quoted on many sites as the place of reference for many things.
I have observed over time that all is not true that is on Wikipedia, and the information is open to manipulation.

Seeing that anyone can post on Wikipedia who controls what what is correct or not

PS. this is not an attack on Wikipedia, just a request for clarification.

leon · #2 10-03-2009, 09:01 PM

Ron, I have to agree, I too often refer to that site for certain information, and tend to take heed to what they say.

Leon

acropolite (Phil) · #3 10-03-2009, 09:22 PM

Ron, from my experience, anyone can get on Wiki and change what's been posted (I've actually changed (corrected) an entry).

astroron (Ron) · #4 10-03-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acropolite

Ron, from my experience, anyone can get on Wiki and change what's been posted (I've actually changed (corrected) an entry).

Phil, that is one of my points, anyone can change anything or substitute what other people have posted.
As in the last election politicians or their assistants went in and changed others Bio's

stephenb (Stephen) · #5 10-03-2009, 09:45 PM

I tend to disagree in part.

I believe that Wikipedia is generally reliable and the perception that anyone can post any false information, is becoming less common. You can take almost any topic whatsoever on Wiki and there is a SIG (Special Interest Group) dedicated to monitoring additions, modifications and acts of sabotage, as well as adding information accurate information, correcting grammer, puncuation and debating accuracy. I know this because I have witnessed their expert contributions first hand. There are literally thousands of SIG's on Wiki.

One of the important aspects is providing proof by citing references.

I have been involved in the past in providing information on Victorian towns and events, and as I said, there are countless SIG's closely watching every change. One of my many contributions is information on the Sunbury Pop Festivals 1972-1975, which I own much archival information.

Of course there will always be topics which are not as closely monitored and these may go unmonitored but this is always unavoidable in such a large website with over 2.5 million articles in English alone.

One of the downfalls of Wiki is the limitations of posting images and copyright issues. As a result there are not as many images as their should be.

It is not a "perfect" reference, but it have improved 100-fold in recent years and will only get better. I would trust Wikipedia above many other internet sources available.

astroron (Ron) · #6 10-03-2009, 09:54 PM

What you have just provided is the sort of information I was requesting,but there is still room for manipulation.
If as you say it is better than it used,I hope so.
Thankyou for the information.

stephenb (Stephen) · #7 10-03-2009, 10:02 PM

As I said, there are SIG's who are very, very protective of their subjects. If you look at the tabs across the top of any Wiki page, you will be able to look at the History of edits, Discussion between members etc.

If you find an item of information which is wrong, needs deletion or modifying, you can put it up for discussion with other members who share the same interest in the subject.

A minuscule example of SIG's here at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ject_Australia

You will find a list of Australian topics being worked upon. These people involved are very dedicated volunteers, like the thousands around the world.

I feel Wiki has a "self-levelling" approach to it's accuracy of information. there will be a few sporadic errors but the overall effect of constant finetuning evens out the percentage of errors.

astroron (Ron) · #8 10-03-2009, 10:12 PM

Thanks

thunderchildobs · #9 10-03-2009, 10:45 PM

If it is on the internet it must be true

AstroJunk (Jonathan) · #10 11-03-2009, 12:49 AM

An academic study and found that Wikipedia was now more reliable than Brittanica!

Of course neither are 100%, and it is always a good idea to cross check...

Chippy (Nick) · #11 11-03-2009, 01:08 AM

I would personally rate wiki as "very accurate" in an overall sense. I regularly use it as my reference tool, and other than referring to a reference that is specific to a particular topic (usually less convenient), I don't think it has a peer. Brilliant resource and "very" (but not 100%) reliable.

Bear in mind that no reference resource is 100% reliable unless it pertains to a narrow topic. Even then it can become out of date. Wiki has them covered.

I was surprised to hear a couple of years back that school students (my nieces in particular) were not allowed to quote wiki as a reference for researching their projects. It was considered too unreliable. Wonder if the 20 year old books in the library are "reliable" :-)

MrB (Simon) · #12 11-03-2009, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AstroJunk

An academic study and found that Wikipedia was now more reliable than Brittanica!

Of course neither are 100%, and it is always a good idea to cross check...

Was going to say similar:

I frequently found errors in the printed encyclopedias at high-school and college. Nothing is perfect.

Analog6 (Odille) · #13 11-03-2009, 05:25 AM

I find it an invaluable source and use it a lot but never as a single reference point. It is excellent as a source to other references too, books, other reference sites etc.

Yes, people can go in and add/change things, but I think it has basically settled down now and opposing groups are happy to have their conflicting viewpoints both recorded.

It all depends what you are researching, too.

KenGee (Kenith Gee) · #14 11-03-2009, 08:26 PM

Ron the openess it the great part about Wiki, it is peer reviewed in public. If you feel there might be something a bit suss about some fact. Have a look at the history tab. You will find the point debated about more often the not.

pgc hunter · #15 11-03-2009, 08:30 PM

Although I like Wikipedia, sometimes the information is incorrect or even contradicting. For example, you see climate tables for cities with data that are different to those quoted in the text. An example of this is present on the page for San Jose, USA, where the average summer temps are quoted as 26C in the text but the climate table provided shows 29C.

The point is, I wouldn't gamble my final year uni project on it

vespine · #16 13-03-2009, 12:03 PM

Another voice pro wiki here. I think it is fantastic and I have also contributed articles and edits to the project. If you blindly believe anything you read, be it from a news paper, a guide, an encyclopaedia or even a respected journal, then trust me, the accuracy of Wikipedia isn't the wost of your problems.

vespine · #17 13-03-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

The point is, I wouldn't gamble my final year uni project on it

The point being, that most people still don't get, and no offence intended, but Wikipedia is NOT a primary source of information, just like any encyclopedia. Therefore you shouldn't be citing it in any uni projects anyway. Hopefully what you are studying IS well cited with primary sources in wikipedia, the list of which you can then blindly rip off as you please once you've checked the validity.

OneOfOne (Trevor) · #18 14-03-2009, 10:24 AM

I use it as an initial source of explanation on a subject, to get dates, further key words etc. If I find the topic interesting enough, I may search for other sources on the net and if I would like to follow the subject in depth, I buy a book....you just can't beat sitting outside reading a book!

PCH (Paul) · #19 14-03-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AstroJunk

An academic study and found that Wikipedia was now more reliable than Brittanica!

Of course neither are 100%, and it is always a good idea to cross check...

That's probably true now Ron. But I would like to state for the record, as someone who initially held Encyclopedia Britannica in the highest regard, that Britannica sold out to the yanks quite some years ago, and the quality of the content became significantly lower almost overnight when that happened.

EB used to THE encyclopedia of choice without even a close second. But is now very ordinary imho.

Cheers,