How Credible is Wikipedia?

Woodmonkey · 12-06-2005, 15:27

I learned something from this article. I thought that it was like a real encyclopedia where articles were verified. I had no idea that anyone could go in and anonymously post article, or edit other articles. There is no verification that the article/edit is accurate. Looks like Wikipedia is not a credible source for controversial info unless it can be backed by other info.

Quote:

Wikipedia Tightens Submission Rules

Quote:

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, is tightening submission rules after a prominent journalist complained that an article falsely implicated him in the Kennedy assassinations.

Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site, said Monday. People who modify existing articles will still be able to do so without registering.

The change comes less than a week after John Seigenthaler, a one-time administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy, complained in an op-ed published in USA Today that a biography of him on Wikipedia claimed he had been suspected in the assassinations of the former attorney general and his brother, President John F. Kennedy.

Wikipedia, often cited as a prime example of the type of collective knowledge-pooling that the Internet enables, has some 850,000 articles in English as well as entries in at least eight other languages, including Italian, French, German and Portuguese.

Since it's launch in 2001, it has grown into a storehouse of information on topics ranging from medieval art to nanotechnology.

The volume is possible because the site relies on volunteers, including many experts in their fields, who submit entries and edit previously submitted articles.

Wales said he hopes the registration requirement will limit the number of articles being created.

While it would not prevent people from posting false information, the new process will make it easier, said Wales, for the site's 600 active volunteers to review and remove factual errors, defaming statements and other material that runs afoul of Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia visitors will still be able to edit content already posted without registering. It takes 15 to 20 seconds to create an account on the Web site, and an e-mail address is not required.

"What we're hopeful to see is that by slowing that down to 1,500 a day from several thousand, the people who are monitoring this will have more ability to improve the quality," Wales said Monday. "In many cases the types of things we see going on are impulse vandalism."

The episode demonstrates the lack of accountability that often comes with articles posted by anonymous people over the Internet. Unlike content included in magazines, books and other traditional media, online material can be submitted by just about anyone, often without having to volunteer any identifying information.

"I sympathize with this person, but it's really not any different than a posting on an anonymous Web page," Eugene Volokh, a law professor specializing in the First Amendment, said, referring to Seigenthaler. Volokh added that Wikipedia provides casual readers with a valuable service but that he would never rely on it as a source for scholarly articles.

Seigenthaler, USA Today's founding editorial director and a former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, said that after the op-ed was published Wikipedia's biography of him was changed to remove the false accusations.

But Seigenthaler said an entry on Monday still got some facts wrong, apparently because volunteers are confusing him with his son, a journalist with NBC News.

Also disturbing is a section of his biography that tracks changes made to the article, Seigenthaler said. Entries in that history section label him a "Nazi" and say other "really vicious, venomous, salacious homophobic things about me," he said.

Wales said those comments would be removed.

For 132 days, Seigenthaler said, the biography of him falsely claimed that "for a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby."

The biography also falsely stated that he had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984.

Seigenthaler said he wasn't convinced the new registration requirement would stop the practice of vandals posting content that is slanderous or knowingly incorrect.

Wikipedia will either have to fix the problem or will lose whatever credibility it still has, he said.

"The marketplace of ideas ultimately will take care of the problem," Seigenthaler said. "In the meantime, what happens to people like me?"

Click here
for the source of this article

DocDiggs · 12-06-2005, 16:49

I certainly was not aware of this either. I have not made much use of it, but primarily because I have the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 on disk. The Encl. Brit. website is: www.britannica.com. I do not recall what I paid for it, but it was probably not too expensive as I would not have purchased it in that case.

It is on 3 disks and easily loaded and accessed. I'll go to the site and see what I can find. I think I bought at Office Max.

Woodmonkey · 12-06-2005, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocDiggs

I certainly was not aware of this either. I have not made much use of it, but primarily because I have the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 on disk.

I was using it more and more because it is far-reaching and easy to navigate.

DocDiggs · 12-07-2005, 12:22

GOTO: www.britannica.com.

The cost of the 3 disk, Encyclopedia Britannica 2006, is $20.95
" " 2005, is $14.95

In the site, select Software and view all SW programs.

These prices are currently considerably marked down.

Woodmonkey · 12-07-2005, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocDiggs

GOTO: www.britannica.com.

Thanks Doc

Bluehawk · 12-07-2005, 13:00

Wikipedia is okay, but is spotty and not nearly as comprehensive as Brittanica of course. For some things it's better than nothing... their entries are incomplete sometimes. At other times they are incredibly helpful with links and the like.

Another possibility is that they solicit viewers to submit information to their entries, so someone with an axe to grind or faulty information might be allowed to post something inaccurate or false.

Sometimes though, if one has no access to the Brittanica etc., Wikipedia is about all there is to use for some things.