Wikapeadia is becoming synonymous with “the truth” and this is a problem as some are beginning to find out. Everyone cites Wikipedia. Students in schools, bloggers online, and the casual researcher are all guilty of quoting Wikipedia as if it were undisputed fact. The truth is that many things posted are not only false, but they are considered slanderous.
Take this recent lawsuit by Fuzzy Zoeller over statements that were posted to his Wikipedia biography that were false and slanderous. Over time the statements have been repealed, but for the time that they are posted on the internet anyone who reads them will leave with the impression that they are true.
Overall, Wikipedia gets most things right and as an organization it polices itself fairly well. But what happens when they do make mistakes? (And they do make mistakes.) Who is responsible and should anyone be made to pay for those mistakes? If you or I took out an advertisement in the newspaper slandering a politician or an athlete, do you think we could be sued and/or punished for it? These are the types of questions that are being asked.
As a teacher and a father helping my son with research, I try to ensure that students verify all information by using more than one source, and preferably not all from the internet. It may seem like a small matter, but to Fuzzy Zoeller the loss of endorsement money is not laughing matter.
Agreed, I think Wikipedia does get a majority of things right. However, because of the open access nature to it, there is always the potential for significant inaccuracy and abuse.
Perhaps, the problem lies in the name. Since many folks liken the site to an actual encyclopedia, the perception of all entries being fact (and thoroughly reviewed to verify that) is probably a big part of the problem.
I still think it is a useful site. However, as you mentioned, getting second and third sources to verify any info found there isn't a bad idea.
socal, I read that article. I guess Fuzzy Zoeller doesn't like people thinking of him as a drunk drug abuser. But I think that is nothing compared to his infamous statement after Tiger's Master win in 97.
Socal, without editing an article yourself, I'd like you to find one strand of incorrect information on Wikipedia. If you have to, take a screenshot since it will most likely be fixed rather quickly.
Wikipedia is not perfect, but it is arguably the best source of information for all things important. It is better than a dictionary because it goes in-depth on definitions (see the scientific definition of "theory" I always quote when talking about evolution). It is better than an encyclopedia because you have, literally, millions of sources contributing to the accuracy of the facts, as opposed to the few that are responsible for the information put in an encyclopedia.
I know it's hard to trust anything where it is so easy to write deviant information, but it is clearly the best amalgamation of information ever seen before.
As I said to you on your other blog, they cite their sources as best as they can; they notify you at the beginning of an article if its accuracy is in question, or if there is a bias to it at all.
Ultra, if you follow the link I provide I think you will see that I say that it does a pretty good job. If you are saying it is the best source, I would disagree. Read the entire article and you will see where it talks about one person who had misinformation for 4 months. Is that reliable? I don't think so.
Do they police the site and try to correct errors, yes, but it is fallible. It is not perfect. I prefer Oxford dictionary to Wikipedia anytime.
Socal, if you're hanging on the fact that deviant information will be written in various Wikipedia entries, then you'll never accept it. Deviant information is almost always caught, and it's very rare that such information is allowed to stay up for more than a little while.
I didn't read the entire article, but from what I read, it defends Wikipedia...
Any teacher worth a grain of salt would not allow Wikipedia to be a credible source of information. In face, in college, the site is not a valid to be referenced. Most teachers tell their students the differene between valid educational sites with credible information, and others such as Wiki.
What Wikipedia is good for is getting background information, and most articles link to other sites that you can verify information with.
Its funny you posted this blog today. someone in my English Lit. course referenced Wikipedia today and my professor went into a tangent on while wikipedia is nice, it often leads to misinformation and consequently ignorance.
Wikipedia is cool and all, but I personally wouldnt look for important information there.
Great post.
Yeah, this is great background information (Tim Hardaway thinks so, too!).
Seriously, could you find all of that in an encyclopedia or any other book?
Wikipedia is like looking through a bunch of encyclopedias at once.
I challenged my English professor last semester about using Wikipedia as a source and she lost the debate and allowed the class to cite it. From what I hear though, she went back to banning it.
I did not only cite Wikipedia, though. Under the Wikipedia entry in my works cited, I indented the related sources cited on the Wikipedia page.
no one should EVER quote wikipedia. its for general knowledge. but then again, there are Confederate Encyclopedias that say the South won the war. in SC we even have confederates day replete with closed banks.
the smart man reads wikipedia and then follows said quote to the source cited at the end of the article. i dont understand what the deal is with these people. even congressman are screwing with their Wiki's. colbert had the world change a bunch of articles in real-time.
Fuzzy Zoeller should have logged on and changed them back himself. he's such a ####.
Last edited by demonicume on February 23rd at 5:20 AM.
One good thing about wikipedia is that almost all articles list all of their sources.
so if you want to reference something to wikipedia, just go down to the footnotes where the writer got the information from (example NY Times Website), and then use that link as a source instead.
Ultra, I am not attacking Wikipedia as a reference source, but if all you do is quote their sources without verifying them then you are not doing thorough research. You are blindly accepting what the author has written. You never accept what I write blindly, so why are you so adamantly defending Wikipedia? I think it is reliable for the most part, but I would never submit or allow it as my only source for my students anymore than I would allow any other encyclopedia to be the definitive source for a paper. All I am is saying is there are mistakes. You don't want to accept that. There are mistakes witn Brittanica too.
1) No one should ever cite Wikipedia. It's true that they do an excellent job of ensuring accuracy they can not monitor it 100% of the time.
The smart thing to do is what Demon says, read what Wikipedia says then go to the cited source. I simply use Wikipedia as an overview site and then follow through to their sources.
2) "History is a set of lies agreed upon." -Napoleon Bonaparte
Personally, I like the idea that anyone can add to or detract from Wikipedia. Professors often get themselves wrapped around their own expertise and become close minded. Letting your average joe contribute opens up the possiblities to discover what's true and what's simply theory.
3) I believe the internet should remain 100% unregulated (this isn't true now but it's closer than most mediums). I think information on the internet should be off limits in terms of the law.
I say this because once we star givnig the government the right to monitor the internet and assure it's not slandering anybody the sooner they expand that definition. It always happens, "give them an inch and they'll take a mile."
Wikipedia is open source and free. It should remain that way and I hold it in higher regard than many of the "authoritative" books that are written by "experts" who believe they've some how ascended above the "common man."
RU - great points. my only point of deferment would be on regulation. currently, telecoms have a monopoly on the internet. it doesnt seem that way because there are so many, but every company has its own area that it governs. in most areas, you only have 2 or 3 choices for broadband providers. these guys band together to hold back policy and saturation - which is why the US is 21st in the world in the saturation the tech WE invented. ever heard of Broadband over Powerline? google it sometime. you could be receiving your internet for 10 bucks a month from your power lines. its been approved, but the power companies have been locked out of competition with the Telcos like ATT (the old-new monopoly). for proof, go to circuit city or best buy: you can buy a powerline router for your home network for under $100 dollars. i have a a few because wireless is insecure.
what happens when a company like Time Warner decides that it's tired of competing with Vonage or Skype? well, they own the internet pipelines and can lock down anything they want. we need regulated non-regulation. we the people need protection from companies gone mad. net-neutrality shouldnt be an issue. the internet pipes were built with US taxpayer money. the US internet should be free and subsidize because we already own it. anyone who pays federal taxes should have access to the internet and only pay funds for maintenance and expansion. thats just my opinion though
You make the argument that Wikipedia contributes to ignorance due to the few people who go through and troll articles, putting in half-truths and distorting reality. But it's quite obvious to me that this anxiety about Wikipedia's effect on society is simply a case of misleading vividness, and that you're truly missing the more prominent source of misconstrued information.
Sure, the fact that anyone can edit a Wikipedia sounds like an open door for all the slander and trolling to ever-increase until the entire site sinks into an oblivion. What's striking is that it doesn't; and the reason it doesn't is because of a phenomenon which author James Michael Surowiecki deems "The Wisdom of Crowds." Simply stated, most people visiting Wikipedia go there in search of reliable information; rest assured, these people have differing opinions and political views and backgrounds, etc. -- this is not a problem, but rather a virtue.
I would argue that the bigger source of misleading information is the mass-media sources such as FoxNews, CNN, etc. which often distort facts to conform with the point of their stories and forward their political views upon its watching-audience. The problem with this is, people rarely challenge what they hear on these mass-media broadcasts and websites; if some of the information is incorrect, it can quickly spread and create an epidemic of incorrect assumptions from a large variety of different people. And these misleading views come from the top; more specifically, the executives from the media-outlets, many of which have conforming viewpoints...
and similar opinions of political candidates -- the information lacks the "Wisdom of Crowds." And the worst part of it is, people aren't questioning the information.
The difference with Wikipedia is, anyone is free to challenge and re-write anything they read on the site -- it's certainly a radical philosophy; with the common assumption that most "people" are not well-educated creates the anxiety that, perhaps, the information I'm reading isn't true, maybe it's manipulated by one of the "ill-educated" people. But while it may be true that many people are "ill-educated," if you look at the people as a whole, we can see that the various ill-educated people on different sides of the spectrum can offset each other. The fact that most of the information on Wikipedia is reliable and accurate is simply an incredible account of "The Wisdom of Crowds." And because people visiting the site are aware of the fact that the site can be freely edited, they are conscientious of the fact that the information might not be reliable. And those who frequently edit articles truthfully (which represents the majority of editors) are constantly on the lookout for phony-facts -- and the fact that there are so many different individuals of different majors and different expertise leads to a plethora of information that is, for the most part, quite accurate.
Accepting the frightening accounts of the isolated incidents of Wikipedia being incorrect, or someone slandering another is to be misled -- just as walking down the street worrying about whether or not the guy next to me is going to...
Last edited by NorthSider on February 23rd at 10:24 AM.
pull out a gun and shoot you point-blank. It's a scary thought, and it makes sense (there are so many ill-educated people, chances are they surf Wikipedia too); but, if you look at the facts, you can easily see that most of the information is reliable and the site contributes to less mis-information than major news sources, as a whole.
"I want someone to explain to me that if it is so accurate how it can be disputed in the first place?"
The fact that it IS disputed is further account to its accuracy. As noted above, we rarely dispute information that we see on TV News shows and large media outlets; but the information comes from one source; the media executives, and it's not disputed at all.
It should be more worrying that you're constantly receiving information that isn't disputed at all on a daily basis, and most are blindly accepting it as fact, than that you're surfing a website where the users are aware of the fact that the information can be edited by anyone, making the number of different people likely to dispute the facts o####iven article greater and greater.
Many of the most successful scientific discoveries were made when thousands of the worlds' scientists are all posting various results from different experiments they each attempted. Because everyone has access to this information, people can retest these experiments and the ones that turn out successful quickly rise up as more and more people attempt the experiment, raising the chance that any flaw in said experiment would be exposed.
I don't know about you, but Wikipedia doesn't worry me near as much as FoxNews or CNN, per se.
Socal .......... Fuzzy is worried about statements that might've been made about him or attributed to him ?
Perhaps he forgot that little malaprop made by him some years back concerning Tiger and collared greens at the Masters ? Then again wasn't that just Fuzzy being Fuzzy and fussy ? Chances are he forgot about that one !
tophatal.......
Last edited by tophatal on February 23rd at 11:49 AM.
Guys Global Warming as a naturally occuring process is a fact. But the term "Global Warming" is not used for the natural process in the media, it is referenced as "Man-Made" Global Warming.
Warming, just like cooling is natural. This notion that "man" can stop it is retarded.
As for the fact that the media distorts the truth, that will never be disputed by me because they bend the truth and only report what they choose. Both the right and left media.
As for Wikipedia, it is still not always factual. You can believe what you want and I have said that for the most part it is, but there are errors and there omissions. It is self policing and they do a good job, but it is never the end all of information and never will be.
Lastly, surely you are not comparing the media to WIkipedia. One is a newsreporting agency while the other is trying to be a definitive source of history and definitions. The media was never intended to be what an encyclopedia was.
As to Global Warming. This is a fallacy and I could go into it in depth to anyone who wants to talk about the normal cycle of weather that occurs because our earth is tilted on its axis which also wobbles. There is a natural warming and then cooling that is cyclical. It has nothing to do with man. It happened way back during the ice ages when man was not here and it will continue with or without man.
I am sure Fuzzy will never forget what he said in jest. I remember it like it was yesterday and it was way overblown; however, that does not give anyone the right to publish slander. Wikipedia is viewed as the "truth" and a reliable source. Look at how Ultra and North defend it. Anyone who reads an article that is posted erroneously and believes it can have their reputations ruined. What if someone published that Tiger Woods was really #### and even though it might be retracted but left in the archives, do you really think he would not sue them.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on February 23rd at 1:28 PM.
Case and point: I just typed in two words Communism and the other Marxism. They turned off the dispute option on Communism and on Marxism saying that certain parts may not be referenced properly. In other words it is not correct or researched as it should be before being posted.
Are you professing to have disproven the phenomenon of Global Warming -- surely you don't believe you've just ended the debate?
"It is disputed b/c it is accurate? HUH!? That makes absolutely no sense."
Calm down, my friend. Don't put words in my mouth, let's examine what exactly you said:
"I want someone to explain to me that if it is so accurate how it can be disputed in the first place?"
You're making the irrational assumption that the disputation is, in fact, the correct answer; of course, it could be that the disputation is actually the incorrect information and the original text is correct. It could be that the disputation is correct (in which case, it's good that the article was disputed); it could also be that both are, in one way or another, correct to an extent.
Inaccuracy is a problem no matter the subject or the modus operandi of distributing that information. We could go through the mass-media and point out all the incorrect information, we could go through television shows and point out when each-and-every news anchor stated stories that were the product of sensationalist media tactics.
The point is, in order to judge the efficiency o####iven medium, one must compare it to a similar medium and decide which system is more apt to get the "right" information to the user.
"It is disputed b/c it is accurate? HUH!? That makes absolutely no sense."
You've reversed the terms. It is not disputed because it's accurate, it's disputed to ENSURE that it is, indeed, accurate. Going back to your assumption of validity, if the information currently on the site is correct, then the dispute will most likely lead to the confirmation of the original information which will subsequently remain under the article. If the disputer turns out to be the correct one, then the information will be amended so that the article is entirely correct -- and because there are so many different kinds of users surfing Wikipedia, any inaccuracy is going to be pointed out, and much information will be challenged by different sides of the spectrum. Again, this is not so when it comes to the free-media; whatever Philippe Dauman decides should be reported is reported on each-and-every Viacom station, no debate about it. No disputation, no questioning the authority; what Philippe says goes. This is the epitome of inaccurate information.
I'm not arguing that Wikipedia is the most accurate system of information on the Internet, what I am saying is that it is efficient in that it accomplishes its goal. Obviously, Wikipedia's original intention was not to be considered the most reliable information-outlet in the world -- people know this. And because they know this, most do not simply accept whatever they read on Wikipedia as pure fact; but when you watch the news, or read an article on CNN.com, you're accepting what you read is
fact -- you trust CNN, even if that trust is placed aberrantly.
The bottom line: What Wikipedia is meant to do is be a free-forum for information -- the ultimate checks and balance system where people are constantly reading and correcting information, and writing more and more as the times pass. The best thing about Wikipedia is that both Democrats and Republicans read and write on it, both theists and atheists, both Americans and Europeans, both black and white, both radical and conservative -- and every one of these groups is free to correct or create whatever information they deem incorrect or relevant, respectively. Consequently, there will be times when incorrect information is posted (though the vast majority of it is not), but as the site continues to operate, that information will be quickly corrected, and the equilibrium restored.
So, sure, anyone who blindly accepts everything they read on Wikipedia is bound to be misled; but that same result is evident no matter the medium from which they are receiving their information. If someone blindly accepts everything they hear on FoxNews, they are bound to be misled; if someone blindly accepts everything they hear from the person they met at McDonald's, they are bound to be misled.
For what it's purpose is -- to get as much accurate information from as many different people as possible -- there is no better site on the Internet. And if you don't recognize that, then you're already being misled.
"Case and point: I just typed in two words Communism and the other Marxism. They turned off the dispute option on Communism and on Marxism saying that certain parts may not be referenced properly. In other words it is not correct or researched as it should be before being posted. "
No, that could mean a variety of different things. It could mean that the information simply isn't cited correctly, or that the link to the website on which the information was gathered is broken.
And if, by a chance, the information on the article was incorrect; you're only making my point for me. The incorrect information was quickly spotted and will be corrected as a result.
If I'm reading the newspaper and I read a statistic that the journalist got of a site of questionable accuracy, I can't simply "click" edit and correct his error so no one else is misguided by his article. Again: It's achieves what it was meant to achieve, and in an extremely proficient manner.
North, you continually compare the "media" to Wikipedia. The two are not synonomous and you can not compare the two. One is supposed to be reliable while the other is an opinion and a reporting agency. The two are completely and vastly different in regards to their purpose and what they post.
North: "No, that could mean a variety of different things. It could mean that the information simply isn't cited correctly, or that the link to the website on which the information was gathered is broken."
Hence my point North. If it is an encyclopedia that uses facts and the facts are not even cited correctly how is that reliable? Do you hand in an unfinished term paper of 20 pages and then ask your teacher to let you have it back b/c you were not done yet? Of course not. Hence the info and the site are not reliable. Some topics will be but alot are not.
When I think of a written encyclopedia I expect it to be honest and truthful, not continously disputed. They should revise and make it accurate before posting to the world as fact.
"One is supposed to be reliable while the other is an opinion and a reporting agency."
No one should suppose the Wikipedia is entirely accurate, that's the whole premise. If everyone supposed it was always right, nothing would be edited. Obviously, this isn't the case.
"North, you continually compare the "media" to Wikipedia. The two are not synonomous and you can not compare the two."
Your argument was that you were frightened about people being misled by the information on a site that everyone can edit (and hence, the readers are aware that the information may not be reliable). The reason I bring up the free media is not to say that Wikipedia is tantamount to the media, but rather to compare Wikipedia's misleading of the public as compared to the media, which more frequently and more drastically misleads people.
"When I think of a written encyclopedia I expect it to be honest and truthful, not continously disputed."
And that's not what you think of when you think "Wikipedia." You don't visit http://www.wikipedia.org/ thinking, "Everything I'm going to find on this site is going to be 100% accurate," nor should you. Again, if people really went to Wikipedia thinking that, not a single article would ever be edited.
Anyone who goes onto Wikipedia thinking that everything they read is the end-all-truth of the matter is being completely ignorant; but the same is true for someone who blindly accepts anything they hear/read as the end-all-truth. This is truly a silly argument.
Quit over-analyzing the situation; people do not go on Wikipedia with the thought that it is the same thing as the World Book Set at their public library. That's the virtue of the site: Everyone is always on the lookout for phony-information, when they find it, they correct it. People go onto Wikipedia asking questions about the information, "Is this REALLY true?" It forces people to question what they are reading, which is only a good thing for the reader.
North, first off I don't think I ever used the word "frightened" about Wikipedia. I am neither frightened by it nor afraid of information. I am knowledgeable enough to decide for myself about what I believe. I do not blindly accept anything in print, but you are being naive if you believe other people do not. You yourself talk about how people are misled on the media and I know for a fact that many students in HS believe anything they read on the "net". Wikipedia does bill itself as an online encyclopedia which is supposed to be factual. If you are now saying everyone knows it has mistakes, then that is all I am saying.
You can find errors in printed encyclopedias, and every other form of the printed word. Should we not allow students to cite the Merriam-Webster dictionary for vocabulary homework because their typist erred in a definition?
Citing Wikipedia as your ONLY source of information is wrong because you assume that the information on Wikipedia is correct.
The chance of deviant information not being caught is slim to none. The moderators at Wikipedia have a list of which articles have been edited and where, and they go through the list with a fine-tooth comb. And that's just the moderators -- regular people also do fact-checking.
Heck, I wrote this entry on Robert Person, and I made a typo, spelling "Phillies" as "Phlilies." When I logged on to Wikipedia, they notified me of the change, and the timestamp was 5 minutes after I had posted the article.
Well, can I just add...I must say, it is good to see the Socal/LSU/Northsider/Ultra wars going on again. NOW THIS IS NORMAL STUFF!!! I'm so sick of the Dusty wars...or whoever that #### is. I think I'll just sit back and watch you guys debate awhile, pleading the 5th!!!
Don't know if this has been said or is well known but I do believe Wikipedia is a "community" type thing. I remember when I first ran acroos it I'm sure I read something to the effect anyone can add to it. It's not an organisation per se that posts these things but open to anyone with something to add. Ya take stuff from there with a Horse size piece of salt. A lot of good stuff there.Ya jst have to weed out the bad. In Brief: Wikipedia IS NOT the same as Webster's, Britannica or Funk & Wagnell.
Last edited by BDyckns on February 23rd at 7:11 PM.
I would have commented sooner, but I was editing the SocalSports entry in Wikipedia. You will be pleased to know that you killed a bear with your bare hands when you were 7 and in 1882 were elected President of the United States. Unfortunately, you were impeached for accidently destroying the Congress after inventing nitroglycerin.
