Trust Wikipedia?

Flint · 11-13-2006, 08:44 AM

Do you think a volunteer-written encyclopedia can maintain a high standard of accuracy, or do you think alot of bad information probably slips through the cracks? In this article: deliberate (and subtle) deceptions were corrected within three hours.

lookout123 · 11-13-2006, 08:47 AM

it depends on the subject, but i trust it less than i trust the cellar. if you've got a question and you drop it on the cellar you'll usually get the info you need from a source that doesn't want to blow their credibility by spouting stupid BS. unless you're talking politics or nipple pics. then we're all about the silly stuff.

DanaC · 11-13-2006, 08:53 AM

Well. I just asked it some questions the answers to which are subject to a lot of historical inaccuracy and controversy and was quite surprised to find it had taken account of current historical scholarship. I wouldn't cite it in an essay.....but it could be useful if you are just looking for a few quick facts.

Sundae · 11-13-2006, 09:35 AM

I think enough people access it for it to be broadly accurate. I tend to use it to double check something I already had an idea about.

I've certainly spotted some inaccuracies, but mostly in the details.

glatt · 11-13-2006, 10:34 AM

I voted for "As much as any other source" but what I was really voting for was "as much as any other source on the web."

Wikipedia is quite accurate, and very convenient. It's not perfect. But I know of no quicker way to look something up quickly to get a good answer. If you want to really dig into a topic, I wouldn't stop at wikipedia, but it's a great starting point. If I was still doing research papers, I would probably use it as a research tool to get an overview of the subject and then dig further for more information from a more established reputable source.

SteveDallas · 11-13-2006, 10:39 AM

It depends on the topic. If I judge it to be relatively non-controversial general knowledge (example: who was President of the United States in 1837? What year did A Chorus Line premier on Broadway? What's the quadratic formula?) then for my purposes Wikipedia is as good as any other general reference source.

skysidhe · 11-13-2006, 10:39 AM

I think one responsible source is just as reliable as another. I do check multiple sources for the same information. That includes Wikipedia as a cross reference. Wikipedia includes many links to cross reference information of which I like.

edited for tw

tw · 11-13-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skysidhe

I think one source is just as reliable as another.

So Rush Limbaugh was as reliable as Peter Jennings? I suspect you were limiting the context to 'responsible sources'. Responsible sources, for example, provide reasons for their conclusions - explain the underlying principles, related theories, numerical facts, citations, and peer review. Same report from Daily News (tabloid) and Philly Inquirer (broadsheet). Simplistic Daily News version without related details and reasons 'why' also provided an erroneous and distorted conclusion. Classic example of lying by telling half truths - or why propaganda works. The Daily News report was too short - an executive summary. Executive summary is for those who only need 'feel' informed.

To actually know something, the entire report or white paper must be read. Executive who make decisions from executive summaries are also called MBAs. Reader who learns without demanding details, underlying principles, related theories, etc are best described as uneducated. Major difference between Peter Jennings and Rush Limbaugh. Rush hypes what his daily White House fax told him to say - without underlying details. Peter Jennings demanded more of his reporters - demanded details and supporting evidence before he would even report it.

Who would you believe? Wikipedia or Rush Limbaugh? That should be obvious. But an answer without including ‘why’ means that answer is in error - has no credibility - is so unreliable as to be ignored. Question atop this paragraph demonstrates the concept – the point. Those underlying principles are, for example, why I so forcefully disputed Saddam's WMDs as advocated in 2002, was confident in what I posted, and why I saw a 1990 invasion of Kuwait as inevitable months before Saddam attacked. You know credibility in details. We knew Saddam and bin Laden did not conspire because we knew the men’s history, objectives, etc. Those who met the definition of ‘uneducated’, instead, believed a lying president who blamed 11 Sept on Saddam. Not all sources are worthy or meet the definition of reliable. Fox News has a credibility problem for obvious reasons as defined above.

Do I trust Wikipedia? Compared to what?

fargon · 11-13-2006, 12:10 PM

I can not believe any single source, before I quote any thing I check for other sources, and comments. Anything published will be colored by the writer, or editor. Encyclopedia and other reference materials are as vulnerable as news sources to creative editing. Even trusted sources should be treated as suspect until you check all available sources.

Sundae · 11-13-2006, 12:45 PM

Having read other replies and given this more thought I think for me Wikipedia's best aspect is that it references cultural phenomenon.

When I read a reference to Jonestown and poisoned KoolAid in a Stephen King book back in the 80s I actually ended up going to the reference library to find out more, because no-one I asked knew what I was talking about.

Now I can check Wikipedia if something is referenced in a book or film. Including things like TV series, catchphrases, even random events mentioned by Dwellars.

Yes, I could just Google them - but if all I have is a few words, and I'm interested in an explanation not a sales pitch I'll usually check there first.

Undertoad · 11-13-2006, 01:15 PM

Wikipedia is absolutely one of the internet's best results, a coalescing of the net's wisdom that has become a vital resource. With it, the collective accuracy rate of the world rises; if Wikipedia is only 97% accurate, that's an improvement over the 60% (source: my asshole) you'd get with a simple Google search.

A tremendous amount of foresight and good decisions have gone into the thing, and I'm the usual techno-optimist but I think it is part of the net revolution that makes us all more productive and innovative.

Flint · 11-13-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Wikipedia is absolutely one of the internet's best results, a coalescing of the net's wisdom that has become a vital resource.

I agree. Did you follow the link in my initial post? It pretty much disproves the criticisms of the collective structure Wikipedia utilizes.

"The fibs that professor Alexander Halavais slipped in were deviously subtle: that abolitionist Frederick Douglass, lived in Syracuse, N.Y. for four years, and that the Disney film The Rescuers Down Under won an Oscar for film editing. Both are false, but would you have doubted these "factoids"?

Halavais hypothesized that the obscure errors would "languish online for some time," the Chronicle reported. Instead the Wikipedia volunteers eliminated all the fabrications within three hours of being posted."

skysidhe · 11-13-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

I suspect you were limiting the context to 'responsible sources'.

ah yes. Thanks for clearning that up.

dar512 · 11-13-2006, 02:40 PM

Wikipedia will never be Encyclopedia Britannica. Too many people messing in too many pots to keep track of. That is not, however, to say that Wikipedia is not useful. Most of the time that I go to wp, I do not care whether it is an authoritative reference on the topic.

Flint · 11-13-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512

Too many people messing in too many pots to keep track of.

Or, you could say: so many people fact-checking that it is guaranteed to be highly accurate, as this article suggests.

View Poll Results: Do you trust Wikipedia?
As much as any other source.	18	51.43%
I take it with a grain of salt.	15	42.86%
Not as far as I can throw it.	2	5.71%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

11-13-2006, 08:44 AM	#1
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Trust Wikipedia? Do you think a volunteer-written encyclopedia can maintain a high standard of accuracy, or do you think alot of bad information probably slips through the cracks? In this article: deliberate (and subtle) deceptions were corrected within three hours. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-13-2006, 08:47 AM	#2
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	it depends on the subject, but i trust it less than i trust the cellar. if you've got a question and you drop it on the cellar you'll usually get the info you need from a source that doesn't want to blow their credibility by spouting stupid BS. unless you're talking politics or nipple pics. then we're all about the silly stuff. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

11-13-2006, 09:35 AM	#4
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	I think enough people access it for it to be broadly accurate. I tend to use it to double check something I already had an idea about. I've certainly spotted some inaccuracies, but mostly in the details. __________________ Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac

11-13-2006, 10:39 AM	#7
skysidhe ~~Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.~~ Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 6,828	I think one responsible source is just as reliable as another. I do check multiple sources for the same information. That includes Wikipedia as a cross reference. Wikipedia includes many links to cross reference information of which I like. edited for tw Last edited by skysidhe; 11-13-2006 at 02:32 PM.

11-13-2006, 08:53 AM	#3
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Well. I just asked it some questions the answers to which are subject to a lot of historical inaccuracy and controversy and was quite surprised to find it had taken account of current historical scholarship. I wouldn't cite it in an essay.....but it could be useful if you are just looking for a few quick facts.

11-13-2006, 10:34 AM	#5
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I voted for "As much as any other source" but what I was really voting for was "as much as any other source on the web." Wikipedia is quite accurate, and very convenient. It's not perfect. But I know of no quicker way to look something up quickly to get a good answer. If you want to really dig into a topic, I wouldn't stop at wikipedia, but it's a great starting point. If I was still doing research papers, I would probably use it as a research tool to get an overview of the subject and then dig further for more information from a more established reputable source.

11-13-2006, 10:39 AM	#6
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	It depends on the topic. If I judge it to be relatively non-controversial general knowledge (example: who was President of the United States in 1837? What year did A Chorus Line premier on Broadway? What's the quadratic formula?) then for my purposes Wikipedia is as good as any other general reference source.

11-13-2006, 12:10 PM	#9
fargon Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: La Crosse, WI Posts: 8,924	I can not believe any single source, before I quote any thing I check for other sources, and comments. Anything published will be colored by the writer, or editor. Encyclopedia and other reference materials are as vulnerable as news sources to creative editing. Even trusted sources should be treated as suspect until you check all available sources. __________________ Annoy the ones that ignore you!!! I live a blessed life I Love my Country, I Fear the Government!!! Heavily medicated for the good of mankind.

11-13-2006, 12:45 PM	#10
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	Having read other replies and given this more thought I think for me Wikipedia's best aspect is that it references cultural phenomenon. When I read a reference to Jonestown and poisoned KoolAid in a Stephen King book back in the 80s I actually ended up going to the reference library to find out more, because no-one I asked knew what I was talking about. Now I can check Wikipedia if something is referenced in a book or film. Including things like TV series, catchphrases, even random events mentioned by Dwellars. Yes, I could just Google them - but if all I have is a few words, and I'm interested in an explanation not a sales pitch I'll usually check there first. __________________ Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac

11-13-2006, 01:15 PM	#11
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Wikipedia is absolutely one of the internet's best results, a coalescing of the net's wisdom that has become a vital resource. With it, the collective accuracy rate of the world rises; if Wikipedia is only 97% accurate, that's an improvement over the 60% (source: my asshole) you'd get with a simple Google search. A tremendous amount of foresight and good decisions have gone into the thing, and I'm the usual techno-optimist but I think it is part of the net revolution that makes us all more productive and innovative.

11-13-2006, 02:40 PM	#14
dar512 dar512 is now Pete Zicato Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago suburb Posts: 4,968	Wikipedia will never be Encyclopedia Britannica. Too many people messing in too many pots to keep track of. That is not, however, to say that Wikipedia is not useful. Most of the time that I go to wp, I do not care whether it is an authoritative reference on the topic. __________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." -- Friedrich Schiller

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)