Wikipedia: a good reference source? Maybe NOT!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Has anyone here done research on the accuracy of Wikipedia's info? I recently was informed that Wikipedia is highly *inaccurate* and should never be used as a source for documentation or for support of opinions. Maybe he was right .... here's what he sent me:

Quote:

---

From

http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-mchenry

/url] :

Criticism of Wikipedia

In a 2004 article published on Tech Central Station, "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia", McHenry [former editor of Encyclopedia Brittanica] made several criticisms of the structure of Wikipedia. The core of his argument can be summarised as follows: Anybody can edit Wikipedia, no matter how ill-qualified. As a result, even a somewhat well-written article will tend to degrade over time as ignorant or incompetent people make subsequent alterations. As a result, he argued that Wikipedia could never become a reliable source of information. McHenry used the Wikipedia article on Alexander Hamilton to illustrate his point.

McHenry concludes:

The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.

---

I don't think I'll be using Wikipedia much any more - at least not as a source for unbiased info....

[Bravus]

Wikipedia is a human product without an editor, so the quality of all the information is as good as its authors. the idea is that it will get better as people correct and improve it, but that assumes that the only changes made will be improvements, not the reverse. I regard it as useful rather than canonical, and would go to Brittanica or another edited encyclopedia for something that was really crucial. But Britannica's Swedish death metal coverage is woeful...

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Wikipedia is a human product without an editor, so the quality of all the information is as good as its authors. the idea is that it will get better as people correct and improve it, but that assumes that the only changes made will be improvements, not the reverse. I regard it as useful rather than canonical, and would go to Brittanica or another edited encyclopedia for something that was really crucial. But Britannica's Swedish death metal coverage is woeful...

---

Maybe I'm just very gullible, but I'd always thought Wikipedia was an online encyclopedia and that the info on the site could be trusted.

Now you got me curious....I looked up "Swedish death metal" at Wikipedia, and all I can figure out is that it's some sort of music -- other than that, I'm stumped! Must be a generation gap thing...I'm from the one that said *groovy* and *far out.*

[Neil D]

That is interesting....

I have used this reference before in the World Affairs forum and at the time I used it, found some conflicting statements over the Valery Plume Affair...Got to look carefully, and look up different characters in the subject, but it's there...or at least it was , unless someone edited it out.

[Bravus]

A 'wiki' is an interesting online phenomenon that allows lots of people to contribute content to something and edit one another's entries. One I often refer to is the 'Homestar Runner' wiki - it's about the web cartoon series Homestar Runner, but is just maintained by the fans, each adding their little bits.

So 'Wikipedia' is an encyclopedia made using the wiki process - which means it is made by actual humans, whoever cares and takes the time. Some of the info no doubt is from world experts, other stuff is... less authoritative.

Hope that's a helpful explanation!

[Bravus]

PS One of the two references to 'Bravus' in Wikipedia refers to me. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />