Wikiality: Wikipedia and Truth

IronDuke

Ancient Mariner
Because it's becomming increasingly commonplace on discussions here, I think it's time we pondered the phenomanon known as Wikipedia. Like it or not, it's here to stay and it's being used more and more in ways which make traditional media shudder.
What are your views on its usefulness? Do you think it's an acceptable manner of disseminating information?
Do you think there are any dangers inherent in allowing the "truth as agreed upon" to be depicted as it is?
Do you think academia will ever accept Wikipedia for what it attempts to be, or will it simply be put into its own context as a byproduct of the e-revolution?

My views, in brief:
I take nothing on it as fact. I treat it as popular opinion until I can confirm it via a more trustworthy source. The internet is too full of disturbed young kiddies in their mothers' basements who like to needlessly screw with people (a false idea can be just as destructive as the worst computer virus). The authors are not held accountable for their content; there is no way to assess the quality of the research as there is in a more traditional forum. (Though I am impressed at the attempt to include links to sources/bibliographies lately - it's a step in the right direction)

Until its content is subjected to more scrutiny, I'm going to refrain from endorsing it. My students (I run tutorial sessions fro undergraduate history students) are told that such a source is unacceptable for their work as well.
 
I think that Wikipedia is a good source of information for the likes of internet forum debates or just getting an overview of a topic.  It is not exactly ideal to use as a source for writing your masters thesis on.

In short, it's of good value to part-time researchers.
 
I use Wikiepdia for some sources of info I'll admit, but I do not take as the whole gospel. However, on subject matters such as sporting achievements (oh, that one again), I tend to accept - on the assumption that pages such as, for example, the Premier League is going to be well visited and is going to be maintained properly.

For band info and peoples biography, I will use Wiki (amongst others) for information. I do not always use it as fact and on occasions, if I know it to be incorrect, I will amend accordingly.

But you are right, the sheer magnitude of it and the openness of it's editing does make it prime for malicious attacks. This cannot be easily policed - have you seen the amount of edits in the recent updates part? - but you do occasionally stumble across a site that has been locked for editing - this one for example.
 
The info people use from Wikipedia could be at least as trustworthy as any other comment on this forum or other location on internet.

(Simply because we don't see any other trustworthy sources here ; we are not gathered around an oaken table showing each other our beloved sources)

Besides truth, it also has to do with trust. Sometimes, different sources present different theories or facts and then it's getting interesting to see which source might be more valuable.
 
The one for Pluto was also locked up, only registered members and administrators could edit it.
 
The problem with Wiki is that many school kids use it as an official encyclopedia (phew :p) and quoting/referencing it in their papers. Wiki is a great source for "general knowledge" and some people put a lot of work into checking sources and reviewing before they post, but not everybody. Before school kids (I'm talking 14-16, like my older kids) should be allowed to use it as a source, they must be taught to criticise and judge worth, relevancy and other things. Today, many kids more or less copy from Wiki and put it in their papers, and what's even worse - they do it at the university. When I worked as a sociology teacher, I failed a number of papers due to plagiarism, copying from unrealiable sources like Wiki and outright cheating. We need to learn the young the points of peer review, scientific value and source critique.

On the other hand, if I want a general idea of something I go to Wiki and read up on it. I just don't take it as "The Truth".
 
A few months ago, Wikipedia was assessed by the journal Nature for the accuracy of its scientific content [read the article] and was found to be about as accurate (or inaccurate) as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

I don't know about the other domains, but this seems like pretty good going to me. It still has to be taken with a pinch of salt... like everything else on the Net!
 
Mav, part of the reason for that may be that Wikipedia contains a large amount of content taken from old Britannica editions. (Though I didn't read the article you posted, so I don't know if Nature was looking at those parts.)
 
Back
Top