Reply
Tue 31 Jan, 2006 08:29 am
It looks like the politicians have discovered Wikpedia:
Wikipedia Now Blocking US Congress From Making Edits
Wikipedia has a
discussion page about this.
Good Grief! Does this include the Senate, George and his croonies? The State of the Union address was overshadowed by the Oscar nominations this morning. GWB had so little to offer in his sleep-walking address that I'll likely shut it off after ten minutes.
There are still those who still aren't aware that Wikipedia is written by-and-large by amateurs and the biases often show up on those pages.
Cripes! Wikipedia allows anyone to edit their entries? Geez...whatever happened to journalistic standards?! This has substantially altered my opinion of Wikipedia.
Eva wrote:Cripes! Wikipedia allows anyone to edit their entries? Geez...whatever happened to journalistic standards?! This has substantially altered my opinion of Wikipedia.
None of the dozens of wiki sites is done by professionals - all are written/edited by volunteers.
That's the idea behind this, Eva :wink:
See:
Wikipedia
au1929 wrote:A false Wikipedia
I suppose, you forgot to type the adding "biography", since the article doesn't mention a false wikipedia at all.
au1929 wrote:Who should be responsible for the content of Wikipedia
How is responsible for the internet?
I've run into a lot of people quoting Wikipedia until I informed them what it was. They demured to apologize for not knowing.
Walter.
The article i posted was posted without changes of additions.
A false Wikipedia was the caption.
You wrote how is responsible for the internet. I can only assume you meant who. I should think in this instance the people who run the Wikipedia should share some of the responsibility.
They do not have the staff to fact check everything but it is moderated for anything outlandish or inflammatory.
au1929 wrote: I should think in this instance the people who run the Wikipedia should share some of the responsibility.
They've got 'moderator-like supervison', LW mewntioned that already.
When you follow the link in my entry post, you'll notice that.
A lot of the entries to Wikipedia are simply "cut and pasted" from other sources. For the most part the information is as accurate as if you had gone to an alternative reference site....Encarta for example, if not the particular topics home page, if one exsists.
State histories, animals, plants...things of that nature are probably safe, but I would never take anything "important" written at Wikipedia at face value, without checking it against a more prominent source.
They unfortunately don't always cut-and-paste from reliable sources so I would recommend going to Encyclopedia Britannica which has access for a very small fee per year to their full articles. Encarta is the Reader's Digest of encyclopedias.
Simple rule is that the more common a subject is, the more often a new or old volunteer will add or edit to the Wikipedia entry on it. So for the more common subjects, it's probably true that any deliberate misinformation will be corrected pretty soon.
But of course, if you want to spread misinformation on a topic or person who is not otherwise greatly known, then the chance of someone who knows what you're talking about coming in and correcting you quickly decreases proportionally.
You can also pretty much predict that any subject that is particularly politically controversial or contested will attract rival edits along political lines, though the moderators seem to be pretty good at catching any such dynamic and then marking the entry as contested, so that the user is warned about its potential unreliability.
We've had people right here on A2K that went to Wikipedia, edited an article and then posted it is "proof" to back up their claims.
IMO, It's an interesting place to start a search but useless as an authority for facts.
Oh, no -- we've even agreed on something.