Wikipedia. So...how accurate is it?

It's possibly one of the most comprehensive and up to date online information sources. But, being that the info is user submitted, how does the information hold up when tested against facts (if tested at all) ?

Have there been any cases of the site giving flat out incorrect information and claiming it as fact? Also, if it truly is full of accurate info on practicaly everything, I wonder how long it'll remain a free service.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

In before Wikiality.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Technophile

Have there been any cases of the site giving flat out incorrect information and claiming it as fact?

I've seen a few minor inaccuracies here in there. I don't really remember what they were, but I remembered thinking, "that's not correct" a few times while browsing through wikipedia. That's not to say that it's a bad source. It's just not something you would consider a "scholarly" source.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The ugliest bits of Wikipedia are the ideology topics. The software basically relies on people to stake out their ideological turf in order to get a comprehensive article on the subject. And a fairly comprehensive article gets made, but the rates at which these are revised, copyedited, factchecked, organised, have certain language modified for a neutral point of view, etc. takes fuckloads longer, because the Zionists/Marxists/LaRouche cultists/Anarcho-capitalists form these faggy cabals and MONITOR EVERY SINGLE CHANGE 24/7.

I swear, genuine internal editing on Wikipedia really becomes a case of '4chan with table manners' sometimes.

If you're after the GDP of Latvia or the PM of Malaysia, go ahead. But think very fucking carefully before you take anything on the 'iffier' sections as a given.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Cal

If you're after the GDP of Latvia or the PM of Malaysia

Come to think of it, there was a huge edit brawl over the classification of Malaysia as "middle-income" or "upper middle-income".

I was speaking idiomatically.

Lolz. How did Malaysia come into question of wikipedia?

And.. upper-middle income?

Bull. If we were upper middle income, not getting JPAs won't be a problem.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,69844-0.html

So there.

FELIPE NO

it's pretty accurate. it even has a definition of itself in wikipedia.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

i have not found any issues... maybe i am looking up the wrong topics...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Hasn't this subject been discussed here already?

Instead of running off at the mouth again, I'll simply say that Stephen Colbert and his example involving the elephant entry makes a more resounding statement as to the stupidity of Wikipedia than I ever could hope to make myself.

It also doesn't help that "founder Jimmy Wales has already told users not to cite Wikipedia as a source". (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060801-7396.html)

How ya doing, buddy?

At least it isn't urban dictionary, which is essentially a dictionary equivalent of Wikipedia without any sense of control.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Cal

I swear, genuine internal editing on Wikipedia really becomes a case of '4chan with table manners' sometimes.

I couldn't agree with you more, although I commend you on an excellent descriptive comparison which I would not have thought of. They refer to "edit wars" and it's every bit as intense as any kind of a flame war that you see on any forum. They are just a little more polite about it.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Most of the time, I think of the accuracy as something that's proportionate to the amount of users editing; the more users involved, the more likely that things like shitty comments that aren't related and topic focus is key. Usually.

That's usually blown out of the water by "touchy" topics when solid facts aren't presented/personal edit agendas are the mainstay. Take a look at any large article, there was probably an edit war somewhere in there.

So yeah. I think that most of the content could be considered accurate, but I wouldn't base everything on that alone.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Its a good source of information. But if I'm actually gonna use it in something important I'd cross-check it with other sources first. Still, its one of the fastest and most efficient ways to obtain information.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Sosei

Most of the time, I think of the accuracy as something that's proportionate to the amount of users editing; the more users involved, the more likely that things like shitty comments that aren't related and topic focus is key.

The problem with that is because I can guarantee you that the vast, overwhelming majority of people on Wikipedia have no right to write about any of the subjects they edit.

If one person was to write a convincing, well spoken edit that Harrison Ford is a closet homosexual, and then 10 people made sure that the edit would stay there - it becomes fact to someone else who reads it without a grain of salt.

Before you say "Well, this is the internet, they should know to be skeptical!" - thats the whole reason that Wikipedia does not and will never work. Some people don't know enough not to take things at face value while others simply see it as a tool for disinformation or humor.

It simply boils down to mob mentality. If X people out number Y people on Subject A - then whatever X wants becomes fact for Subject A. I don't know about the rest of you - but why do you want to be a part of ignorance? Do you have such fun chasing the Frankenstein Monster up to that windmill?

FELIPE NO

Wikipedia however can be a nice compendium of links to more reliable authorities on many of its subjects that a researcher might not have been previously aware of. Thats why I go there when I'm looking something up I don't know much about at all.

Indeed, mob mentality does not, by default, make something right. However, that does not mean that the mob is never right.

Guaranteed reliable truth? No.

Completely useless? Hardly.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Some people are way too hard on Wikipedia. In all honesty, it's remarkably accurate for a user-edited encyclopedia. But one definitely needs to take anything found there with a grain of salt, and cross-checking is always a good idea.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

My english teacher was suppose to tell us why Wikipedia isn't a good source to use for our research paper. I'll have to ask him why... otherwise I will be using it

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I can't say that I use it for any academic purposes, typically I'm browsing for information about mass media, tv shows, that type of thing. And even then, I only truly trust the articles that concern topics that are broad enough that I know enough people have seen it for it to be accurate.

Yeah you'll have the dumbasses trying to pull pranks, but there are a lot of people there, that honestly work hard to make sure that garbage gets cleaned out.

It may not be perfect, but at the very least it can point you in the right direction. At least in most cases.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It's a good starting point if you know nothing about a subject at all. I use it the same way I use everything2.com--as a quick, possibly inaccurate overview. You can't possibly expect to use it as a valid reference source, though. That's like people saying that Cosmo magazine is a scholarly journal.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I remember a study that showed that Wikipedia was only slightly less innacurate than Encyclopedia Britannica.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Majin yami

I remember a study that showed that Wikipedia was only slightly less innacurate than Encyclopedia Britannica.

The problem with that is that the statement only lasts as long as the space between entry edits.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I use it for simple stuff for the most part. Such as explaining to my friends and sometimes family what the game Squash is. And also for other various things, such as actor ages and whatnot.

I find it fairly accurate, although sometimes there are problems. Such an example is how much inaccurate stuff was put into the NASCAR page. I know everyone finds NASCAR boring (Except me for the most part), but that doesn't mean people have to spam it.

FELIPE NO

I have found some slight inaccuracies. I wouldn't suggest using it as a main resource in a paper. I use it to find things like...
when I wanted to get some background info about diventart, or when I wanted to look up teh history of anime, or when I even looked up a certain anime in order to brush up on some of the points in it (I was doing a critique of that anime). but over all, I think it's very good, especially if you can kinda tell when something doesn't seem right

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

When I had one-on-one conferences with my writing students, and I saw that they had drawn heavily on the Wikipedia, I would open up my laptop and show them a page, and then alter the information on that page in real time, adding misinformation in a way that was unlikely to be immidiately noticed.

I changed it back, of course, but it was a powerful example to them of just how easily someone with half a brain could alter an entry in a convincing and wholly misleading way.

I also showed them the Penny Arcade comic of Skeletor altering He-Man's Wikipedia entry. They didn't get it--the damn kids had never heard of Skeletor or He-Man!

Jam it back in, in the dark.