Is Wikipedia reliable?

[Lizzy F.]

I like using Wikipedia. Even if the articles aren't always up to snuff there are often great hyperlinks at the bottom that give me more info.

[pastafari]

(06-07-2011 11:34 PM)boymom Wrote:  Nope, sorry, the burden of proof is on you. If we have to prove a positive (God exists), then you must do the same (Wikipedia is reliable).

I am talking about reliably accurate. This is easily demonstrated, but you will need to do it on your own.

Take several subjects which you know a lot about and find their corresponding Wikipedia article. Make note of all the facts presented and calculate the proportion of incorrect facts vs correct facts. Repeat this and make an average. You will see its reliability then.

leaving Wrote:There is a very good reason why as a student I'm not allowed to use wikipedia as a source of research for college assignments. It's because it's not reliable. After all, any idiot can edit any article they want or write any article they want. They don't actually have to know about the subject matter.

I understand colleges dont want you using it, but its a great starting point. Do you have some examples of unreliable articles, or are you just going to offer unsubstantiated claims?

Mark Wrote:My only attempt to help Wikipedia came several years ago when I spent several months trying to edit an article on an historical figure about whom I am THE expert. A user kept changing my text back to what s/he had written. I finally gave up until the user was banned.

Which historical figure are you THE expert on?

Also, lets be honest, how many of you use Wikipedia instead of consulting the Encyclopedia Brittanica?

[Perry]

What about the John Seigenthaler Wikipedia page controversy? Here is, ironically, a Wikipedia article on the subject. Surely that could count for an inaccuracy in Wikipedia.

[diachenko]

(06-08-2011 07:48 PM)pastafari Wrote:  Do you have some examples of unreliable articles, or are you just going to offer unsubstantiated claims?

You mean like your unsubstantiated claim that it is reliably accurate? Boymom is right. By your own methods of "logic," the burden of proof is on you. We're mostly just having fun watching you make a continued fool of yourself. Unless of course, you are a farce character being foisted upon us by a member in good standing for their own amusement. Scorpio, I could see you pulling this off...

[boymom]

"I am talking about reliably accurate. This is easily demonstrated, but you will need to do it on your own."

First, why the qualifier? If it can be emperically proven, then you should have no problem doing it. Second, I did not make any claim regarding the veracity of Wikipedia. You did; your claim, your proof, your burden.

[The Singular Observer]

On subjects that I really know something about, Wikipedia is not too bad - ie, as someone said - it can be an introduction, but not a reference.

Conservopedia, othoh, is utter garbage.

[pastafari]

It turns out there have been studies on the reliability of Wikipedia already. In 2005, Nature did a study and found it about as reliable as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, with both Brittanica and Wikipedia having a total of 4 serious errors in all the articles reviewed by experts.

From the study:

Quote:many critics have tried to downplay its role as a source of valid information and have often pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called “relevant” field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles–one from each site on a given topic–side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

“An expert-led investigation carried out by Nature–the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica’s coverage of science,” the journal wrote, “suggests that such high-profile examples (like the Seigenthaler and Curry situations) are the exception rather than the rule.”

And to Wales, while Britannica came out looking a little bit more accurate than Wikipedia, the Nature study was validation of his service’s fundamental structure.

“I was very pleased, just to see that (the study) was reasonably favorable,” Wales told CNET News.com. “I think it provides, for us, a great counterpoint to the press coverage we’ve gotten recently, because it puts the focus on the broader quality and not just one article.”
He also acknowledged that the error rate for each encyclopedia was not insignificant, and added that he thinks such numbers demonstrate that broad review of encyclopedia articles is needed.

He also said that the results belie the notion that Britannica is infallible.

It's also worth nothing that even Wikipedia itself says this:

Quote:Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources.

And

Quote:By 2010 reviewers in medical and scientific fields such as toxicology, cancer research and drug information reviewing Wikipedia against professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a very high standard, often comparable in coverage to physician databases and considerably better than well known reputable national media outlets. Wikipedia articles were cited as references in journals (614 cites in 2009) and as evidence in trademark and higher court rulings. However, omissions and readability sometimes remained an issue – the former at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information and a considerable concern for fields such as medicine.

Did I meet my burden of proof?

[Annie Moose]

I cringe at saying this, but for once I have to agree with pasta. While Wikipedia has the potential to be very inaccurate and many articles likely do have serious errors, I don't think it's really all that much worse than other encyclopedias, which either cannot be updated (as they are physical books) or are rarely updated once errors are discovered. As someone who's spent a bit of time helping out around Wikipedia, I can attest to the fact that there's a lot of dedicated, knowledgeable people on there who focus on sets of articles (Wikiprojects), making those specific articles as accurate as possible. High-profile articles, such as biographies or "big" articles on concepts like math or English, also receive a lot of attention. It's smaller, less noticeable articles where you're more likely to run into big errors, because no one's watching them as closely and demanding that there be citations for everything.

Obvious vandalism gets reverted immediately, of course, most often by automated bots. I'm proud to say I've even beaten Cluebot to reverting vandalism a few times! It's the sneaky stuff that isn't always cleaned away.

Of course, you still shouldn't use Wikipedia for more than just a general overview of a topic, same for any tertiary source. That's what the reference list at the end is for, to make finding sources for your English papers easier!

[Shoes]

OP [by- Pastafari] = ‘Is Wikipedia reliable?

pastafari Wrote:It's also worth nothing that even Wikipedia itself says this:

Quote:Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources.

Did I meet my burden of proof?

Yes, you, and Wikipedia answered your OP. No it isn’t reliable.

Moving right along,
Next Thread …..

[leaving]

(06-09-2011 09:12 PM)Annie Moose Wrote:  I cringe at saying this, but for once I have to agree with pasta. While Wikipedia has the potential to be very inaccurate and many articles likely do have serious errors, I don't think it's really all that much worse than other encyclopedias, which either cannot be updated (as they are physical books) or are rarely updated once errors are discovered. As someone who's spent a bit of time helping out around Wikipedia, I can attest to the fact that there's a lot of dedicated, knowledgeable people on there who focus on sets of articles (Wikiprojects), making those specific articles as accurate as possible. High-profile articles, such as biographies or "big" articles on concepts like math or English, also receive a lot of attention. It's smaller, less noticeable articles where you're more likely to run into big errors, because no one's watching them as closely and demanding that there be citations for everything.

Obvious vandalism gets reverted immediately, of course, most often by automated bots. I'm proud to say I've even beaten Cluebot to reverting vandalism a few times! It's the sneaky stuff that isn't always cleaned away.

Of course, you still shouldn't use Wikipedia for more than just a general overview of a topic, same for any tertiary source. That's what the reference list at the end is for, to make finding sources for your English papers easier!

Why use any encyclopedia these days when you can actually now, thanks to the internet, acquire very reliable information written by actual experts in a particular subject field.