Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Use caution with Wikipedia


Linda Z
 Share

Recommended Posts

Many of you may already know this, but because Wikipedia articles get cited in these forums fairly often, I though I'd mention it in its own thread, where everyone will have a chance to see it: Wikipedia is not a conventional encyclopedia, and its information isn't always correct.

Wikipedia is sort of an "encyclopedia by committee"--a huge committee. Anyone can edit its articles and, if I understand correctly, anyone registered with Wikipedia can contribute new articles. The site has a staff who try to check out the veracity of what's posted, but they don't always catch misinformation.

Check out this example of someone who apparently was slandered by an article someone contributed to Wikipedia: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinre...6f1&ei=5090

I think most everyone knows it's a good idea to be cautious about accepting anything they read on the Internet. But Wikipedia has an air of credibility about it because it's well presented and looks and "acts" like an enyclopedia. Reader beware!

Edited to fix link.

Edited by Linda Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldnt get your link to work---

But it is agood reminder nonetheless, I do find most of their stuff informative, but operating the way they do I have found a number of articles that although partially true are obviously slanted if not outright misleading toward the views of the contributor.

Its a quick ready reference most of the time pretty good--but it certainly isnt gospel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 'baseball the talking sport' thread few months ago this came up. I wondered what ever happened to a certain former baseball player turned broadcaster who was well known from the late 60s through the early 90s. According to Wikipedia this guy had a thing for "latin boys" and his broadcast partner was a "screaming queen". I couldn't believe it. So I pasted the juicy stuff on the thread and one of the regular contributors to the thread immediately went to Wikipedia and erased it.

Then one morning while driving to work I'm listening to the STL talk radio station and the DJ says that Wikipedia is so credible and can be trusted. Ha ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of how much we scream around here about citing sources, why would anyone want to use an "encyclopedia' that has no pedigree? In other words, no bibliography or any other means of verifying information. If I'm not mistaken, there isn't even a list of contributors.

I eschew the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, dooj. In the article I posted the link to above, the person accusing a man of being a conconspirator in the assassinations of both JFK and Bobby Kennedy was anonymous, for crying out loud.

I naively quoted Wikipedia a few times myself until I realized how it's put together. I trust it for info about as much as I'd trust Mapquest to get me all the way across the country. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of how much we scream around here about citing sources, why would anyone want to use an "encyclopedia' that has no pedigree? In other words, no bibliography or any other means of verifying information. If I'm not mistaken, there isn't even a list of contributors.

I eschew the site.

In my opinion, each article should be viewed independently. Many of the articles are impeccably sourced. However, not all are...and some of the sources cited are not exactly reliable.

Anything "wiki" should be treated with caution: caveat emptor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A study was done a year or two back that found Wikipedia's information was about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. That's not to say that abuse doesn't happen, but that regular encyclopedias can be very wrong as well. Like Mark said, each article should be viewed independently. If you look at a wikipedia article on something that could be controversial like Bush, then definitely question it. However, if you look up an article on something like the planet Saturn, then it should be fairly accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also keep this in mind Linda (and others). One thing that Wikipedia does that encyclopedias (and I'm referring to the online ones) do not do, is if there is an inaccurate article posted, there is a means whereby it can be openly challenged for accuracy, right there on the site.

I dare you to show me any other encyclopedic site or source even, that has or allows that.

Which is one of the big reasons why Wikipedia is as highly accurate as it is overall. Even with the ability to go in and post articles by anybody. By all odds, it should be a hodge-podge of chaos and meaningless garbage with that kind of setup. ... But it isn't.

Just something to keep in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While doing a book, I came along Wikipedia but didn't use it, as the site says it takes anyone's articles and lets anyone edit them. While I learned there was some control over them, no way could I use it. In biblical research, other online encyclopedias were reliable. An example was newadvent.org or the Catholic Encyclopedia online. While it is Catholic, it has very reliable historical information. There are obviously others.

I prefer though, a good set of old-fashioned book encyclopedias.

Eagle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...