Do you use Wikipedia as your goto "fact-checker?" Don't. So says Wikipedia itself

[b]
[c=804600] Wikipedia Is Not a Reliable Source

Interestingly enough, while Wikipedia has become the world's most powerful thought leader — controlling a vast amount of internet information and being used to determine the credibility of experts across most fields — Wikipedia itself warns it is NOT a reliable source. It states:

“Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong.

Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed.

However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all of the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.”
[/c]
[/b]

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

ArishMell · 70-79, M

Well, we all know you cannot cope with anyone wanting to verify your colourful accusations against the world! Are you like it in real life?

Wikipedia does its best to warn users where something need verifying, but it is fighting people and organisations trying to place lies on it - or even just to discredit it - for their own malificent purposes.

I am not sure it is quite as readily editable as it says, though. I once picked up something I knew if not simply wrong then should be qualified, but as an ordinary user I could not change it.

......

I was able to do that on Wikipedia's [i]Answers.com[/i] branch, which I left after first it stopped taking any more contributions at all, then revamped itself and started demanding a financial subscription*. This is a straightforward Q&A site with many different sections: homes and gardens, motoring and car servicing, science, sports, etc. etc.

I think most of my posts were to its Maths section, rich in questions from Americans baffled by metric units, ranging from school homework questions like how many km in [i]x[/i] miles, (that's only arithmetic, not maths) to swimming-pool owners trying to calculate the doses of additives sold in metric quantities with metric instructions. Accustomed to using both Imperial and Metric units at work and home, and not wanting to help homework cheating, I would show these people [i]how[/i] to solve these questions.

Though the homework was regularly sabotaged by two particular users deliberately making simple Imperial/Metric times-sums like [ km = miles X (8/5) ] into ridiculous tangles of needless extra conversions, invoking algebra (not necessary) and citing dimensional analysis (which it is [i]not[/i]) - and often making mistakes in their own arithmetic . I complained but the moderators did nothing to stop them.

.
*(Perhaps W,. had sold[i] Answers[/i] to Google or something? I do not know but I will not start open-ended, direct-debit or credit-card payments extremely hard to stop, to a foreign company. One-off, small donations to Wikipedia itself, maybe, but no more than that.)

WalterF · 70-79, M

@ArishMell I'll have you notice that you now agree with me on the dubiousness of Gates! For all this time you have been upholding your Wikipedia-esque notion that he was just a failed computer nerd, harmless really.

You now see the danger in this man. You have seen the light! I saw this many years ago! But I am the archetypal "conspiracy theorist", not to be believed at any cost! Yet on Gates, I was right! On how many other things am I right?

I will accept your apology when you are ready. On Gates, for a start. Then we'll see about all the rest.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@WalterF Just the opposite. [i]Don't [/i]mis-read me.

I said I can see why [i]some Americans[/i] think Bill Gates bad.

I did [i]not [/i]say[i] I [/i]think him bad.

I don't necessarily agree with them; I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Gates on everything either. I might not like Microsoft's business model but by being 'Windows' computer user, not because MS was started by Bill Gates.

One thing I have just done is buy and read his [i]How To Avoid A Climate Disaster - The solutions we have and the breakthroughs we need. [/i] (Primarily engineering, really, but needing political will to advance - he comes over as quite the optimist but has clearly done his homework!) I was interested not only in the immediate subject. I also wanted to know what [i]he [/i]wrote; [i]not [/i]what someone tries to order me what to imagine he thinks.

'''''
Why do I think some of his fellow-Americans dislike him? It was reading that book that gave me possible clues.

For a start he not only accepts anthropocentric climate-change as real, but offers analysis and constructive approaches to that without needing hair-shirt lives as many do understandably fear - so is still a sinner in some US eyes. Secondly, as I did notice he cannot help telling us, he is also a philanthropist - but particularly helps those in the "developing" countries. People he recognises as likely to suffer the worst from climate change they contribute least towards. He also points out the USA is among the worst environmental offenders but credits her for working hard to put that right - so perhaps also a sin to some of the scions of Uncle Sam. Yet he is also extremely rich by his own efforts - as Uncle Sam would expect.

That combination must baffle some Americans bitterly divided in their party-political beliefs. What does that make him in their eyes? A successful capitalist in the American Dream model yet also a "socialist" because he cares about all those people with far lower living standards, beyond the Oceans? I am not sure - I can't speak for everyone, but when you look at how US users of this site bicker with each other over such matters, you do wonder.

.......
Apologise to you for what? Statements and opinions not approved by you?

gol979 · 41-45, M

Yep. Even the founder says its not to be trusted. And for all the lefties in the crowd, phillip cross should be a name you are familiar with

Tamara68 · 56-60, F

In itself that is true, but if someone makes a bad addition, it usually is noticed quickly and removed immediately.

Spoiledbrat · F

I actually knew that. I usually get my info from more than one source.

InHeaven · F

No , never

ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 46-50, M

I find Wikipedia content is based on:
1. Who has the most determination
2. Who is the most effective bully
3. Who is the most legalistic

Add a comment...