Reliability of Wikipedia ? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dudesky · #1 05-22-2012, 09:03 PM

Wikipedia is a fine source of information, but it has some issues with content and at times being a factual source.

Quote:

Reliability of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vandalism of a Wikipedia article. The section on the left is the normal, undamaged version; and on the right is the edited, damaged version.

The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1]
Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature responded to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology [7] and pharmaceuticals [8] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability have been raised.[by whom?][9] However, omissions sometimes remained an issue, at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information.[citation needed]
Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, so assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly — so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[10] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[11] A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views."[12]
Several incidents have also been publicized in which false information has lasted for a long time in Wikipedia. In May 2005, a user edited the biographical article on John Seigenthaler Sr. so that it contained several false and defamatory statements.[13] The inaccurate information went unnoticed until September 2005, when they were discovered by a friend of Seigenthaler. After the information was removed from Wikipedia, it remained for another three weeks on sites which mirror Wikipedia content.[14] A biographical article in French Wikipedia portrayed Léon-Robert de L’Astran as an 18th century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigation later determined that the article was a hoax and de L’Astran had never existed.[15]

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Botnst · #2 05-23-2012, 07:51 AM

The math and science stuff is pretty good. History and geography are usually useful though sometimes less reliable than they could be. Current events are nearly useless. In my opinion.

In other words, Wikipaedia is more useful for information than most "experts" in any given subject.

MS Fowler · #3 05-23-2012, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The math and science stuff is pretty good. History and geography are usually useful though sometimes less reliable than they could be. Current events are nearly useless. In my opinion.

In other words, Wikipaedia is more useful for information than most "experts" in any given subject.

It would be instructive to know if the "errors" have a particular slant. I would be interested to know if the errors are more-or-less evenly distributed across the philosophical/political spectrum, or are the errors more focused into a specific POV.

Dudesky · #4 05-23-2012, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The math and science stuff is pretty good. History and geography are usually useful though sometimes less reliable than they could be. Current events are nearly useless. In my opinion.

In other words, Wikipaedia is more useful for information than most "experts" in any given subject.

My goodness.....don't tell TBO that

kerry · #5 05-23-2012, 09:45 AM

The few technical philosophical pieces I have investigated are well done. Getting behind the front page to the discussion regarding changes that have been made is very useful in understanding how ideas are debated and positions taken. You never see that with a Brittanica article.

strelnik · #6 05-23-2012, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The few technical philosophical pieces I have investigated are well done. Getting behind the front page to the discussion regarding changes that have been made is very useful in understanding how ideas are debated and positions taken. You never see that with a Brittanica article.

As the Angel said in Maupassant's short story, " Truth is the voices of many, blended into one."

tbomachines · #7 05-23-2012, 12:21 PM

Will this thread end in a childish temper tantrum too?

tbomachines · #8 05-23-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The few technical philosophical pieces I have investigated are well done. Getting behind the front page to the discussion regarding changes that have been made is very useful in understanding how ideas are debated and positions taken. You never see that with a Brittanica article.

Agreed, almost all of the academic articles in my field are excellent sources of information and nearly always 100% accurate and careful to include multiple interpretations. WP is obviously community edited and that poses risks, but it's always an excellent springboard for firsthand sources if you don't know where else to look.

Dudesky · #9 05-23-2012, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

Will this thread end in a childish temper tantrum too?

Depends which child decides to continue to play games.

MTI · #10 05-23-2012, 12:27 PM

7 Alternatives to Wiki

Botnst · #11 05-23-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

It would be instructive to know if the "errors" have a particular slant. I would be interested to know if the errors are more-or-less evenly distributed across the philosophical/political spectrum, or are the errors more focused into a specific POV.

Slant is caused by who uploads info and persistently edits the info. The methodology is published. You could hire a team of fanatical editors to infiltrate the editing and create a new reality.

elchivito · #12 05-23-2012, 12:49 PM

I use forwarded emails as my source for everything important. I can always count on my "friends" to tell me the absolute truth.

tbomachines · #13 05-23-2012, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

7 Alternatives to Wiki

The scholarpedia thing is an interesting concept. It only has the sciences on it though, and is pretty incomplete. I see a major roadblock being professors themselves...a lot of them write textbooks to get some extra cash. This eliminates that need.

Also

Quote:

Conservapedia is a conservative, Christian-influenced wiki encyclopedia that was created as a response to Wikipedia's alleged left-wing bias. The information found on this site is free of foul language, sexual topics and anything else deemed offensive by the site's editorial staff.

Teenage homosexuality - Conservapedia

Quote:

if a teen has already engaged in homosexuality or is a homosexual, there is certainly hope concerning overcoming homosexuality since the best evidence indicates that engaging in homosexuality is ultimately a matter of choice and so is leaving the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexuality and choice - Conservapedia

Quote:

Optimal Choice

The optimal choice is never to become involved in homosexual activities, given the many undesirable consequences of homosexuality and given what the Bible states about homosexuality. However, there is certainly hope for the individual who wants to overcome homosexuality by the grace of God.
Furthermore, as there is no link between homosexuality and genetics, it very likely that homosexuals will engage in homosexual activitys not because they were born that way(as some claim[12]), but rather because they choose to[13].

Yeah so that's on the same level as Britannica and Encarta....right

lutzTD · #14 05-23-2012, 12:59 PM

as Bot said, I trust it for absolutes like mathmatics formulas and such, anything subjective is just a consensus of opinion, I already have enough opinions......

Botnst · #15 05-23-2012, 01:02 PM

Me too. Given a subject, I carry two or three conflicting opinions just in my own head. the rest of you serve to confuse me even more. Thanks.