How reliable is Wikipedia as an information source?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by pluto2, Aug 30, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pluto2

    pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    How reliable is Wikipedia as an information source?

    Several people told me that Wikipedia is not a very reliable source of information because every idiot can write there.

    I think that Wikipedia is not nearly as reliable an information source as are books or encyclopedia Britannica for example.

    Encyclopedia Britannica is more reliable than Wikipedia because the articles in Britannica were written by professors and experts while in Wikipedia anyone can write and edit, even someone who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
     
    pluto2, Aug 30, 2012
    #1

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard

    Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Depends what your looking for

    During the black sat bush fires people were being asked to stay off the CFA and department of heritage and environment websites because locals in imidiate danger needed access and the sites were crashing with all the people trying to access them. For people like myself who aren't living in the state but have family there the news sites just weren't updating fast enough and the ABC was focused on its job as emergency broadcaster so Infomation they provided wasn't nessarly what I needed. Wikipedia filled that gap brilliantly and was being updated as it happened

    Then there is political stuff, do you think Gloria jeans would have put the controversy they were embroiled in into a traditional encyclopaedia but as long as it was properly referenced (something Wikipedia demand now) Wikipedia was a medium for the protestors to put there side too
     
    Asguard, Aug 30, 2012
    #2

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Wikipedia maintains a staff of unpaid volunteers who review every article. The problems are:
    • This isn't as rigorous as a scientific journal. I don't know how experienced these people are at this sort of work or how much expertise they have in the various subjects. Some articles are written by genuine experts in their fields, and it's not easy to find someone qualified to review the work of an expert--who will do it for free. Errors can slip through, although poor writing, insufficient detail and lack of references are (in my experience) more common problems which are almost as bad as inaccuracy.
    • They don't tell us how long it takes for a new posting to be reviewed, although I seem to recall somewhere that they strive for a 24-hour turnaround. This means that you might get to a new or updated article before they do.
    • There are genuine professional disagreements in academia, just as there are in everything else. You might be reading one side of an argument without seeing the other side or even knowing that there is another side.
    • Some topics, especially things that are currently in the news, are so popular and so controversial that they are updated many times in one day. You could be reading the combined gripes of fifteen people, none of whom agrees with the other fourteen. In the worst cases they simply close them off to revision, let an expert they trust put some finishing touches on it, and leave it that way until tomorrow. The expert could be as biased as anyone else.
    • Articles of minor interest that are off the beaten path (such as the one about my town in California with a population of about 200) don't get high priority among the reviewers, if only because it's way too much work to verify the information.
    This is why no academic institution--foundation, government office, publisher, journal, university, high school, middle school, elementary school--allows Wikipedia to be cited as a reference source in a paper, article, exam, etc.

    Despite all of that, I have found Wikipedia to be highly reliable on topics in which I am qualified to judge.
    • My little town in California? Since I wrote that article four years ago a couple of people have added more information and it's quite accurate.
    • Linguistics? I've found a few errors that would matter only to a professional linguist, or an enthusiastic amateur like myself. I corrected them so they're accurate now.
    • Dogs? Another contributor and I got into an argument over the characteristics of a breed which my wife and I work with. Neither of us was exactly right, and in addition we were arguing partially over semantics. We eventually found reliable sources that we both trusted and reached agreement.
    • Information technology? As you'd expect, the people who work in this field are very adept at working with online information. I've never found an error in an article on software, hardware, communications, project methodologies, etc. On the contrary I've used much of the information I found there. As a technical writer I don't dare incorporate it into a document without double-checking, so I do the double-checking and I've never found a problem.
    • Music? You'd think the arts would be wide open to subjective bias, but I find very little to argue with in the articles about music theory and history, instruments, songs, composers and performers. I have added considerable detail to many articles on 20th century music, especially rock'n'roll, because there's been an explosion of music since the invention of electronic recording and no one can possibly know everything there is to know about it. But I can't remember ever finding an actual error that needed to be corrected.
    • Biographies? Their policy is that no one can write his own biography. Nothing stops you from having your best friend write it, but you have other friends who Google you periodically. They will find it, read it, and correct it if it's a little too favorable. Not to mention, most of us choose as best friends people who challenge us and keep us honest.

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So all in all, I highly recommend Wikipedia as a source of information. If you have access to a Britannica, well sure, why not use it? But I think you'll find a much larger volume of information on almost any topic on Wikipedia. You might be the victim of a minor error once in a while, but as long as all you want to do is enrich your knowledge of a subject, rather than write a doctoral thesis, you'll come out ahead. I'd say its accuracy is much better than 99%, and these days even the nation's leading newspapers have trouble achieving that. I find errors in the Washington Post at least once a week.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Aug 30, 2012
    #3

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Stryder

    Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Here's a point, Wikipedia's entries are written by volunteers that pull information into the wiki from other sources.

    If you were referencing a source, you wouldn't reference it as chain of resources hopping back pseudo-source to pseudo-source to the initial source. The reasons are due to chains suffering breaks (data loss), alterations (updates and changes) or even manipulation (Bias and Plagiarism) at any link en-route, which could "orphan"(disconnect) the initial source.

    While Wikipedia might help you find source information, I wouldn't consider the write-up's complete, as if you are following a Scientific method those write up's would only aid a persons direction in identifying what important points or subject material might exist. It's still up to an individual to research the information themselves and attempt to make a well rounded opinion of a subject from the data they have collected.

    You would never of normally find Wikipedia referenced on "Science Journals" as a source, in fact it actually identifies papers that are either Amateur or completely False (Made up by those with an agenda).
     
    Stryder, Aug 31, 2012
    #4
  8. Asguard

    Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    That being said not everything requires that level of scientific detail. A page about the history of the labor party in Australia is more than likely accurate and usable, same with stuff on the country Australia (and the references cited are things like the ABS and other gov sources). As i said the stuff on Black sat was AS accurate if not MORE so than traditional media
     
    Asguard, Aug 31, 2012
    #5
  9. The Marquis

    The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    I was one of those who was once vehemently opposed to Wikipedia due to that fact that any mug can write or update an article.

    Years later, I am now of the opinion that when one Googles a topic worth looking into, Wikipedia can be used as a reference in many cases to investigate further. It has become a primary reference, from which one can form a broad picture from which further investigation can be embarked upon. I actually have come to use it as a first point of reference.

    Don't make the mistake of relying on it as a source of information upon which one might form an argument. It isn't, in most cases.
    Use it to obtain background knowledge of something you don't know about, and then investigate further.

    Basically, it's the Encyclopedia Brittanica of the naughty teenies.
     
    The Marquis, Aug 31, 2012
    #6
  10. RR Edwards

    RR Edwards Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    I think the fact that religionists and creotards have been forced to forgo most of their social spamming privileges and create competing venues, speaks volumes about Wikipedia's success and statistical viability.
     
    RR Edwards, Aug 31, 2012
    #7
  11. LiverOil

    LiverOil Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Don't forget the cranks. They've been forced to move their nonsense onto http://www.sciforums.com.... oh, wait a minute!

    --
    You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
     
    LiverOil, Aug 31, 2012
    #8
  12. brucep

    brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Because it's not peer reviewed and anybody can edit what's been written it can't be used as a scientific reference. IE scientific papers and formal scientific study. For the most part it's full of good information. I think.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
    brucep, Aug 31, 2012
    #9
  13. RR Edwards

    RR Edwards Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    I think this is the second time in as many posts where your signature line is an ironic juxtaposition of your own point. I am starting to doubt this could be coincidence.
     
    RR Edwards, Aug 31, 2012
    #10
  14. LiverOil

    LiverOil Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    I don't know what on earth you're talking about.

    --
    Darmok and Jalad on the ocean.
     
    LiverOil, Aug 31, 2012
    #11
  15. Yazata

    Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,909
    Wikipedia can be very good regarding obscure subjects that get little attention elsewhere. There are many of these articles that seem to be accurate and detailed, authored by people whose knowledge of the subject is a lot better than my own. Some Wikipedia articles are absolute gems.

    But having said that, I've had some experience in the consumer protection area over the years, and I've seen internet con-artists placing articles onto Wikipedia. So I know for a fact that Wikipedia isn't always accurate and can occasionally be intentionally misleading and even dangerous.

    Another area where I'm skeptical about Wikipedia is controversial subjects that generate lots of passion and attract lots of popular interest. I'd expect those articles to be actively contested battlegrounds.
     
    Yazata, Sep 1, 2012
    #12
  16. Ickyrus

    Ickyrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    70
    This puzzles me. Because when it comes to freedom then you must also consider the freedom of one man or government to take away the another’s freedom. A bit like saying you can't take away one mans freedom to kill another. If we 'own' things then are we taking away another freedom to own it like land for example. When we talk of freedom we always limit it to the freedom to speak ideas. Even then some ideas have to be considered with vigorous counter arguments. I think you can only give freedom to those who acknowledge that it comes with pan-human responsibility - sorry about this comment being a little off topic.
     
    Ickyrus, Sep 4, 2012
    #13
  17. todd

    todd Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    It is only as reliable as the people writing the Wiki. In college we were not allowed to use Wiki as a source of information for reports etc..For this very same reason.
     
    todd, Sep 13, 2012
    #14
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page