Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

TETENAL · Dec 12, 2005, 01:44 PM

With the size and popularity of the Wikipedia project come the problems, and it now shows that the system as is does not work.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...dia-edit_x.htm

I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.

says a Wikipedia victim.

The founder of Wikipedia himself called popular Wikipedia-articles "unreadable crap" in a recent e-mail:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/...er/030075.html

Jens Peter · Dec 12, 2005, 01:47 PM

It was on BBC News a few days ago - now they have this "Wikipedia joker eats humble pie"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4520678.stm

I still like Wikipedia...

Weezer · Dec 12, 2005, 01:47 PM

wikipedia is fine for a quick lookup, but I would never trust it as a source for anything legitimate like a paper or something.

boots · Dec 12, 2005, 01:54 PM

Pretty much always has been flawed. That's the problem with a system that doesn't have a fact-checking editorial staff. The few things I've looked up there are riddled with inaccurate data. Lidocaine, for example, is not isolated from cloves...yet the wikpedia entry claims (or claimed last year at this time) that it was.

ReggieX · Dec 12, 2005, 02:02 PM

It's the encyclopedia of a thousand internet monkeys, and should never be considered authoritative about anything.

Chuckit · Dec 12, 2005, 02:03 PM

Yes, because all other sources of information are flawless and if you touch lead to them, it turns into gold.

Jesus Christ, people, get off your irrational hatred of a perfectly useful reference site.

Chuckit · Dec 12, 2005, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by ReggieX

It's the encyclopedia of a thousand internet monkeys, and should never be considered authoritative about anything.

Neither should ANY OTHER ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Albert Pujols · Dec 12, 2005, 02:32 PM

No one is forcing you to use it, and if you do use it you should probably use your own discretion. I don't see what complaining about it will do, it's not going to change anytime soon.

MOTHERWELL · Dec 12, 2005, 02:35 PM

When I tried to explain to my brother who ****** (starts with a G, ends in .cx) is, Wikipedia came in very handy. WHERE'S BRITANNICA ON THAT ONE?

TETENAL · Dec 12, 2005, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

No one is forcing you to use it.

The journalist whom this issue was about did not use it. That didn't stop the false rumours about his biography from spreading.

turtle777 · Dec 12, 2005, 02:43 PM

Ok, so what's the news ?

-t

ReggieX · Dec 12, 2005, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

No one is forcing you to use it, and if you do use it you should probably use your own discretion. I don't see what complaining about it will do, it's not going to change anytime soon.

Sure it will! They allow anonymous editing.

SVass · Dec 12, 2005, 02:53 PM

Some believe that their textbook was perfect and all history from other sources is biased. Also my news source tells me only the truth and yours lies. sam

(My opinion of politicians is derived from Mark Twain's writings. The "defamed" individual worked in an administration.)

Albert Pujols · Dec 12, 2005, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by ReggieX

Sure it will! They allow anonymous editing.

They already do.

Chuckit · Dec 12, 2005, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The journalist whom this issue was about did not use it. That didn't stop the false rumours about his biography from spreading.

No, but those rumors' spread is really not Wikipedia's fault. The vandalism was corrected in short order, and people should have used more critical thinking before spreading the misinformation. This is not a flaw in Wikipedia as much as a flaw in Wikipedia's readers.

There are upsides and downsides to Wikipedia's approach. Wikipedia is more susceptible to frequent errors, but those errors are usually corrected quickly. Other encyclopedias are somewhat less likely to develop an error, but the errors they do have will usually be much more longstanding. An error in Britannica would not have been corrected in the time this was.

Big Mac · Dec 12, 2005, 03:25 PM

Wikipedia is a decent source for non-controversial subjects, but it isn't a true research tool. And it isn't the final word in open source information editing - its current setup is far from optimal. I envision a site that embraces the current content found on Wikipedia and extends it in a way that will produce greater information fidelity.

Chuckit · 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Wikipedia is a decent source for non-controversial subjects, but it isn't a true research tool. And it isn't the final word in open source information editing - its current setup is far from optimal. I envision a site that embraces the current content found on Wikipedia and extends it in a way that will produce greater information fidelity.

I'd like to hear a description of this vision. (Seriously. Beyond requiring registration, I can't imagine what measures you could take that would preserve Wikipedia culture.)

subego · Dec 12, 2005, 03:42 PM

I like that I'm forced to read it with a critical eye.

I also have to agree it is the only option if you need a reference to some sort of current internet phenomena.

P.S. just got my "Handy Volume Issue" of the 13th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, now that's an encyclopedia!

boots · Dec 12, 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yes, because all other sources of information are flawless and if you touch lead to them, it turns into gold.

Jesus Christ, people, get off your irrational hatred of a perfectly useful reference site.

No argument from me. Just saying I don't find it very reliable, so I won't use it. Nothing more and nothing less.

ghporter · Dec 12, 2005, 05:10 PM

I agree with Weezer. I "know" a lot of bits and pieces, but I often find that I can't remember a particular term or date, so I search for them. Many times the answer I find is in a Wikipedia article. But that only confirms or refreshes my memory.

And I often cross check scholarly papers online too. Nowhere does it say that a thesis has to be well researched or accurate to be posted online...

Caveat emptor, and remember that "anything free is worth what you pay for it."

strictlyplaid · Dec 12, 2005, 07:44 PM

Wikipedia is flawless, and I'd write my doctoral dissertation using it and only it as a source.

No, wait: Wikipedia is totally useless and anyone typing in the URL should be infected by plague.

Chuckit · Dec 12, 2005, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by strictlyplaid

Wikipedia is flawless, and I'd write my doctoral dissertation using it and only it as a source.

No, wait: Wikipedia is totally useless and anyone typing in the URL should be infected by plague.

I agree.

loki74 · Dec 12, 2005, 08:10 PM

I think wikipedia is great... not necessarily for historical fact, but if I want to know some technical stuff that nobody would really have any reason to slant one way or another, it is a good resource. Granted, it cannot be on its own. (what source can, other than..never mind) But I still consider it quite valuable.

- - e r i k - - · Dec 12, 2005, 08:26 PM

I like the idea behind Wikipedia. That anyone can be an editor. That unfortunately means it cannot be 100% accurate all the time (but neither can an editorialized encyclopedia), but evolution-theory should ensure that only facts and truths (at least democratically agreed facts) should stay in "in the end" and the longer Wikipedia exists the more reliable it becomes.

dialo · Dec 12, 2005, 08:56 PM

Wikipedia is horrible for anything controversial like politics, but it is great in other subject areas. Wikipedia is a fantastic place to start on many subjects and get some general info, but anything in-depth needs to be done through a good library.

And that's what's interesting about this thread. For all of you who carelessly rat on wikipedia, chances are you don't know how to use a major academic library properly either. I've spent my entire career in the country's major academic libraries and it's only a minority of students and faculty members who really know what they are doing.

But as a quick reference source, wikipedia and answers.com are fantastic. Say you want some quick information on whales and even a quick list of species in the order cetacea with links to information on each species, nothing really compares to wikipedia's combination of organization, ease of use and fairly detailed entries.

Sure you have to watch your step a bit, particularly in controversial areas, but not using it is really pretty stupid.

subego · Dec 12, 2005, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by dialo

For all of you who carelessly rat on wikipedia, chances are you don't know how to use a major academic library properly either. I've spent my entire career in the country's major academic libraries and it's only a minority of students and faculty members who really know what they are doing.

How does it differ from normal "librarying"

I'm curious...

dialo · Dec 12, 2005, 09:45 PM

If by "normal 'librarying'" you mean walking in, looking up a subject area in the catalog and then getting a book off the shelf and checking it out, most of what a library does is way beyond that. Interlibrary loan and the growth of good electronic resources has totally changed the world of information, but only a minority of folks even in the academic community have kept up.

For instance, while I work at a major academic library with millions of volumes, it's been a long time since the library I've been in has actually had the book/video/cd/conference paper/data set I've needed and I get virtually all physical material through interlibrary loan. The vast majority of undergrads don't use interlibrary loan and most don't even understand what it is.

But just in terms of online research, the electronic resources at academic libraries are way, way above and beyond the drop of authoritative information that available for free online. It's really only been in the last 3 or so years that undergrads have started to pay attention to these resources and only then because librarians have decided to strongly push them. federated searching of these resources is relatively new and it's really a small population of folks using it effectively. This will probably change over the next ten years as the tools get better.

The fact is that many librarians don't even understand what's available and certainly the users don't. But these issues also tie directly into everything going on with online information resources including wikipedia, del.icio.us, google and the rest of the internet toys.

Which is why wikipedia is such a hot topic among information professionals. It has its good sides and bad sides. Bad: politics, edit wars, trolling, etc. Good: easy to use, quick to edit, comprehensive and well-written entries for many topics.

subego · Dec 12, 2005, 09:50 PM

Thanks!

Mastrap · Dec 12, 2005, 10:55 PM

Wikipedia is excellent as a general reference tool for non mission critical information and the world would be a darker place without it. I am finding it best for obscure geek knowledge that's hard to find elsewhere.

Whenever I see anything that I know to be false I correct it. If everybody would do the same we'd have a better wikipedia.

Big Mac · Dec 12, 2005, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

but evolution-theory should ensure that only facts and truths (at least democratically agreed facts) should stay in "in the end" and the longer Wikipedia exists the more reliable it becomes.

Evolution is not the greatest analogy for the process Wikipedia articles go through, but if one wishes to make such a comparison I would not be opposed as such - if one grants that evolution produces non-sensical additions to the base of information (deleterious mutations) that often contribute to the overall dysfunction of the individual topic (organism). Macroevolution is a logical impossibility. And in actuality Wikipedia is in an even worse position because there is very little selection pressure.

- - e r i k - - · Dec 13, 2005, 02:07 AM

I have no idea what the hell your first part of your post was talking about, but I'm strongly disagreeing to your last sentence. There is extremely high selection pressure in the Wikipedia "ecology", because it is in everyone's interest that it is as accurate as possible.

Eriamjh · Dec 13, 2005, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Creater of Wikipedia

(Bill Gates) and (Jane Fonda) are nearly unreadable crap.

Is that double entendre?

Kevin · Dec 13, 2005, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Whenever I see anything that I know to be false I correct it. If everybody would do the same we'd have a better wikipedia.

But that is just it. Some people do not agree as to what is false and what is correct.

Mastrap · Dec 13, 2005, 06:38 AM

What I know to be false. Like 1+1=3 false. Ok?

Kevin · Dec 13, 2005, 06:45 AM

Right.. I wasn't trying to argue..

I was just stating what can make Wik a mess.

Mastrap · Dec 13, 2005, 06:47 AM

I know, you're right. Parts of it are a huge mess, which is a real shame.

Problems arise when people start using wikipedia as some sort of public forum for their own egos and start bickering back and forth. Hey, that reminds me of something....

Kevin · Dec 13, 2005, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I know, you're right. Parts of it are a huge mess, which is a real shame.

Problems arise when people start using wikipedia as some sort of public forum for their own egos and start bickering back and forth. Hey, that reminds me of something....

I don't touch it.

boots · Dec 15, 2005, 10:11 AM

Nature say Wikipedia is as good for scientific stuff as Encyclopedia Brittanica. link

I've never been a fan of EB either. Good for middle school reports, but that's about it.

production_coordinator · Dec 15, 2005, 10:17 AM

I think Wikipedia is a WONDERFUL tool when used appropriately. As long as you understand that it's not a refereed journal, you should be fine.

I'm sure they would love to have a team of people pouring over every article... and they may someday... but until that time, it's not bad.