Is Wikipedia Reliable for Accurate Information?

[Proton Soup]

It's a banned topic here, do you want me to pm it to you?

yes, please.

 

[Evo]

yes, please.

Uh oh, killed you too.

It is pretty shocking.

 

[mugaliens]

Wasn't there a study done a while ago which showed that Wikipedia contained fewer errors, per article, than the Encyclopaedia Britannica?

It was a peer-reviewed study, commissioned by Nature, and reported in several venues, include CNet News, http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html". They didn't find Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica. Only commensurate.

Still, for only having 30% more errors than Britannica, while having many times more articles (even than Britannica's exhaustive volumes), it says there's a ton more information, and quite good information, out there on Wikipedia, than there is on Britannica.

Furthermore, given the quality of Wikipedia's accuracy has improved dramatically over the last decade while Britannica's has not...

Moreover, given that Wikipedia always includes hotlinks to citations (sources) for their articles...

Finally, given than Wikipedia is free...

I'd say it's come a long, long way, is quite good and useful, and is rolling full steam ahead.

 

[mugaliens]

Seems that a long time admin at wiki has been desysopped and banned. He's been falsifying and deleting facts that he disagreed with and defacing the biography pages of scientists he didn't like, all to push his agenda. Turns out he's been doing it for years.

This underscores a need for some sort of qualified, perhaps credentialed level of review.

I, for one, would hate to see any of the following three things happen with Wikipedia:

1. An entrenched hierachy rules with an iron hand, whereby legitimate appeal is squashed 99% of the time.

2. A peer-reviewed culture where the "majority rules" is the watchword of the day.

3. An anarchic environment whereby both legitimate posters and vandals have equal reign.

Thus, I envision a level of ownership well beyond that of "ad hoc revision wars loosely moderated by a few who've entrenched their power." That model is little different than "Ug and Og, being friends, thump Oog."

At best, it might incorporate all three of top-down, peer, and subordinate review, with more weight at the top, but not so much than the peer and subordinates couldn't override an embedded hierachy with a modicum of effort, if the issue was both obvious and necessary.

Is there any way to pay these people? With Wales still asking for donations, I doubt it. With him unable to translate billions of hits a year into better advertising revenue, particularly when 10% of the pages get 90% of the hits, that's just his own dang fault.

 

[Andre]

Recently my esteem for wikipedia has risen a bit as several entries/articles have been improved significantly lately.

I see that Wikipedia takes matters of dispute and accuracy very seriously. However any nutcase can spam it. So indeed, trust but verify and use the references.

 

[Borek]

Is there any way to pay these people? With Wales still asking for donations, I doubt it. With him unable to translate billions of hits a year into better advertising revenue, particularly when 10% of the pages get 90% of the hits, that's just his own dang fault.

I don't think he is unable, I understand that he is unwilling, and that it is a conscious decision to not to monetize on the site popularity.

I must admit this is decision that I like. Each year they got few bucks from me. I owe it to them, I use wikipedia quite extensively.

 

[G037H3]

Recently my esteem for wikipedia has risen a bit as several entries/articles have been improved significantly lately.

I see that Wikipedia takes matters of dispute and accuracy very seriously. However any nutcase can spam it. So indeed, trust but verify and use the references.

Reagan?!? Is that you...?

 

[mugaliens]

I don't think he is unable, I understand that he is unwilling, and that it is a conscious decision to not to monetize on the site popularity.

I must admit this is decision that I like. Each year they got few bucks from me. I owe it to them, I use wikipedia quite extensively.

I use Wikpedia the same.

 

[loseyourname]

I almost never get actual information directly from Wikipedia, but it's usually the first place I go to that directs me to primary sources. Of course, Google is actually the first place I go, but Wikipedia is usually the first hit.

 

[1MileCrash]

Any high-profile pages are always kept up to date and accurate.

 

[Borek]

It's a banned topic here, do you want me to pm it to you?

Yes please.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes please.

Ooh. Me too!

Why don't we just start a thread entitled 'discussion of banned topics'.

 

[Evo]

Yes, back to the trustworthiness of wikipedia.