Have you read Wikipedia much?

[Molinaro]

Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

Have you read the entry for your home town?

Have you read the entry for your home country?

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?

Have you edited an article?

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?

Have you read an article about a religion?

[Floyt]

All of the above.

[arthwollipot]

Have you read the entry for your home town?Yes.

Have you read the entry for your home country?Yes.

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?See question 1.

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?I haven't seen a movie in the past week, but otherwise, no.

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?My high school doesn't exist any more, and anyway, there's no page for it.

Have you edited an article?Only very slightly.

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?Depends on what you mean by "business".

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?Yes.

Have you read an article about a religion?Yes.

[JJM 777]

Wikipedia is often my starting point when I search any information, because:
- Google twists and sometimes censors the search results according to the wishes of its sponsors
- in Google the content you are looking for is often buried under loads of irrelevant content totally unrelated to your search words
- wikipedia articles are generally more extensive and neutral than a random page that you would find with Google
- wikipedia articles load quickly, and contain no pop-up windows, no advertisements
- wikipedia articles are usually available in many languages, in case you need to check the vocabulary of the topic in another language
- wikipedia articles usually include an extensive list of links to further information, unlike pages typically found with Google

I have edited some wikipedia pages. On some city pages I have added a link to my online photo collections of the city. I have also cleaned up the article of my favourite hobby minigolf. Some of my edited versions have been removed by the admins, some were removed by others and then restored by admins, I myself have removed some content by others... the admins do have an important role whenever two editors have a different opinion about something. For this reason they lock the most disputed pages such as Jerusalem, 911, etc.

[ingoa]

Yes to the last four.

[Wudang]

Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

No

Have you read the entry for your home town?
Yes

Have you read the entry for your home country?
Yes

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?
No

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?
No, I prefer IMDB

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?
No

Have you edited an article?
Yes - corrected an error in the defn of anthropomorphism and it seems to have stuck

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?
Yes

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?
Yes

Have you read an article about a religion?
Yes

[kellyb]

Yes to most.
I've found wiki to be ok on very non-controversial topics, and the references often pretty good sources.

[enik]

Yes, it is good at most things and fun to read at times.

[jasonpatterson]

Yes to 7, 9, and 10. Why is this in Education?

[thinkingman]

If you go to their general disclaimer, you will find this:

(I would avoid Wikipedia, because of its lack of fact checking and that anyone can edit it with unknown credentials.)

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
"Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."

"However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."

"Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever."

[gregthehammer]

I would be a yes to all the OP questions except reading about my old schools (not even sure if they would have a wiki entry, might have to check that out) and I have never edited. (I'm a jack of all trades, master of none. I wouldn't want to lead any other jack's astray).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Several of the OP, but not all. I became a convert to Wikipedia a while back because I found a few pop culture articles were worth the read and then "topic creeped" my way into checking out others. If I'm looking for something specific enough that the entry is likely to be the first Google hit, I'll just go to Wikipedia in the first place.

[arthwollipot]

I think I can safely say that I've never come across a Wikipedia article that was egregiously inaccurate, disclaimers notwithstanding.

[pakeha]

Hi, Molinaro.
Interesting questions.
My answer to all, except the last one "Not yet".
I've only learned about Wikipedia since joining here and am still greatly impressed with it as a first step in learning about any given subject.

[terry_leopard]

I just read the entry for the area that I'm living in at the moment, and it claims that I live right next to "the second most dangerous street in Britain!":jaw-dropp

I can't find any mention of that particular factoid anywhere else on the web, and there's no reference in the article to back it up, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.

[Blackadder]

Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

No

Have you read the entry for your home town?

No

Have you read the entry for your home country?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?

No

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?

No IMDB is way better for that

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?

No

Have you edited an article?

Yes

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?

No

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?

Yes, pretty often in fact

Have you read an article about a religion?

Yes, pretty often in fact



long live wikipedia

[thinkingman]

Wikipedia has been well known for errors and problems.

Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'
"An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries."
BBC news UK

Jimbo Wales ends death by Wikipedia
Kennedy murder shames online cult
By Cade Metz in San Francisco
"On Tuesday afternoon, following a Washington luncheon celebrating the inauguration of President Barack Obama, longtime US Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd kicked the proverbial bucket. At least, that's what happened in Wikiland. In our world, they're still among the living." theregister UK 1/22/09

Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain
12/06/08 theregister uk
"Wikipedia is not a democracy. But the totalitarian attitudes of the site's ruling clique go much further than Jimbo cares to acknowledge. In early September, the Wikipedia inner circle banned edits from 1,000 homes and one massive online retailer in an attempt to suppress the voice of one man."


The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify
Popular online encyclopedia, plagued by errors, troubles educators
By Lisa Daniels and Alex Johnson
msnbc.com and NBC News
March. 29, 2007
Lisa Daniels
Correspondent
MIDDLEBURY, Vt. - Neil Waters had never seen anything quite like it. “I was looking at a stack of final examinations,” said Waters, a professor of Japanese studies at Middlebury College in Vermont, “and I found several instances of misinformation that [were] identical from one student to another.” All of those students in Waters’ Japanese history class late last year had been steered wrong by the same source — Wikipedia, the sprawling online encyclopedia that has revolutionized how ordinary people find information....
For Middlebury College’s history department, the answer is plain: Not totally, and not always. The department banned students from using it as a source in their papers, although they are allowed to consult it for background material, a move that was quickly mimicked by professors at other schools, including UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania....
Just this year, a Wikipedia entry falsely proclaimed that the comedian Sinbad was dead. (“Saturday, I rose from the dead,” he said.) Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller sued last month to find out who anonymously posted, falsely, that he abused drugs. And a prolific and highly trusted contributor believed to be a professor was unmasked as a 24-year-old college dropout.

10 Questions: Jimmy Wales 3/21/07
How can I persuade my teachers to allow me to use Wikipedia as a legitimate research source?—Kaitlyn Grigsby, Medina, Ohio
I would agree with your teachers that that isn't the right way to use Wikipedia. The site is a wonderful starting point for research. But it's only a starting point because there's always a chance that there's something wrong, and you should check your sources if you are writing a paper.
time.com


One great source -- if you can trust it
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | July 12, 2004
"So of course Wikipedia is popular. Maybe too popular. For it lacks one vital feature of the traditional encyclopedia: accountability. Old-school reference books hire expert scholars to write their articles, and employ skilled editors to check and double-check their work. Wikipedia's articles are written by anyone who fancies himself an expert....

Ross admits to reading and enjoying Wikipedia, and has even gotten ideas there for future Britannica articles. But the absence of traditional editorial controls makes Wikipedia unsuited to serious research. "How do they know it's accurate?" Ross asks. "People can put down anything.""

See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign By John Borland 08.14.07
Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith -- offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of internet IP addresses....
"The online encyclopedia allows anyone to make edits, but keeps detailed logs of all these changes. Users who are logged in are tracked only by their user name, but anonymous changes leave a public record of their IP address....
Griffith thus downloaded the entire encyclopedia, isolating the XML-based records of anonymous changes and IP addresses. He then correlated those IP addresses with public net-address lookup services such as ARIN, as well as private domain-name data provided by IP2Location.com.
The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made.
Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material."
wired.com

Wikipedia and Beyond
Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision
Katherine Mangu-Ward | June 2007 Print Edition
"Wikipedia does fail sometimes. The most famous controversy over its accuracy boiled over when John Seigenthaler Sr., a former assistant to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, wrote about his own Wikipedia entry in a November 2005 USA Today op-ed. The entry on Seigenthaler included a claim that he had been involved in both Kennedy assassinations. "We live in a universe of new media," wrote Seigenthaler, "with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research-but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects." The false claim had been added to the entry as a prank in May 2005. When Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia about the error in October, Wales personally took the unusual step of removing the false allegations from the editing history on the page, wiping out the publicly accessible records of the error.
"Wikipedia's other major scandal hasn't been quite as easy for Wales to laugh off, because he was the culprit. In 2005 he was caught with his hand on the edit button, taking advantage of Wikipedia's open editing policy to remove Larry Sanger from the encyclopedia's official history of itself. There has been an ongoing controversy about Wales' attempts to edit his own Wikipedia entry, which is permitted but considered extremely bad form. After a round of negative publicity when the edits were discovered, Wales stopped editing his own profile. But in the site's discussion pages, using the handle "Jimbo Wales," he can be found trying to persuade others to make changes on this and other topics."
(reason.com)

The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders
By JR Raphael, PC World
Wikipedia is about to start restricting the editing of some of its articles. Judging by these past blunders, the change may not be a bad thing.

At the Wikipedia Bomis page
"Bomis is a dot-com company founded in 1996. Its primary business is the sale of advertising on the Bomis.com search portal. It was founded by Jimmy Wales and Tim Shell, and provided support for the free encyclopedia projects Nupedia and Wikipedia....
Bomis ran a website called Bomis Premium at premium.bomis.com until 2005, offering customers access to premium, X-rated[3] pornographic content."

[Earthborn]

Wikipedia has been well known for errors and problems.
(snip)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png|This article cites some or all of its references or sources without using hyperlinks, which may make the information harder to verify. If the sources are available online, as is often the case for newspapers and academic journals, please help improve this article by adding links to the citations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Imbox_style.png|This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.

[UnrepentantSinner]

TM, in case Earthborn's post was too subtle - if you don't find the information on Wikipedia accurate, you can always sign up and edit content yourself.

[Wudang]

TM, in case Earthborn's post was too subtle - if you don't find the information on Wikipedia accurate, you can always sign up and edit content yourself.

But that's the problem - if I do find errors in things I know about how can I trust it on the things I know less about.

I regard it as being like a knowledgeable pal - useful to bounce a question off on any subject but if it's important I'll check he's right.

[Childlike Empress]

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?


I've created those articles back in 2001. It's great to see how Wikipedia has developed over the years - but as pointed out, it's only good for non-controversial topics.

btw, for those who don't know and use to shorten "Wikipedia" to "Wiki" - don't do it, it's only the software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki).

[Agatha]

Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your home town?

For the village where I live, and my nearest town

Have you read the entry for your home country?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?

Yes

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?

No, I tend to look at imdb for film information

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?

My secondary school no longer exists and has no page. I have looked at the page on the university I attended, though.

Have you edited an article?

No

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?

I don't think so, I can't recall doing so

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?

Yes

Have you read an article about a religion?

Not recently

[Seismosaurus]

Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your home town?

No

Have you read the entry for your home country?

Yes

Have you read the entry for your country's capital?

Yes

Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?

Yes, frequently.

Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?

Yes, and no, in that order.

Have you edited an article?

Many. A few summers ago I house sat for six weeks and I filled the time writing the first version of many of the articles about military missiles, and a dozen or so of the articles about pron stars.

Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?

Yes

Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?

Yes

Have you read an article about a religion?

Yes

[UnrepentantSinner]

But that's the problem - if I do find errors in things I know about how can I trust it on the things I know less about.

Sniff test and Google Fu... though I am inclined to...

I regard it as being like a knowledgeable pal - useful to bounce a question off on any subject but if it's important I'll check he's right.

...agree with this fully.

[geni]

If you go to their general disclaimer, you will find this:

Now go read britanica's:

http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html

[eeyore1954]

I fiind Wikipedia is an excellent source of basic information not a place to do real research. I agree that on non controversial subjects that I know about I have not noticed anything incorrect. I love the way you can look up historical "facts" and jump to other players , places or events.

[geni]

TM, in case Earthborn's post was too subtle - if you don't find the information on Wikipedia accurate, you can always sign up and edit content yourself.

I think it was more a refence to the disorganised style of thinkingman's post.

[thinkingman]

Here's some links that were requested, with quotes

The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify
Popular online encyclopedia, plagued by errors, troubles educators
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/22/wikipedia_vandalism_crackdown/
Jimbo Wales ends death by Wikipedia
Kennedy murder shames online cult
By Cade Metz in San Francisco
On Tuesday afternoon, following a Washington luncheon celebrating the inauguration of President Barack Obama, longtime US Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd kicked the proverbial bucket. At least, that's what happened in Wikiland. In our world, they're still among the living.


10 Questions: Jimmy Wales 3/21/07
How can I persuade my teachers to allow me to use Wikipedia as a legitimate research source?—Kaitlyn Grigsby, Medina, Ohio
I would agree with your teachers that that isn't the right way to use Wikipedia. The site is a wonderful starting point for research. But it's only a starting point because there's always a chance that there's something wrong, and you should check your sources if you are writing a paper.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1601491,00.html


One great source -- if you can trust it
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | July 12, 2004
So of course Wikipedia is popular. Maybe too popular. For it lacks one vital feature of the traditional encyclopedia: accountability. Old-school reference books hire expert scholars to write their articles, and employ skilled editors to check and double-check their work. Wikipedia's articles are written by anyone who fancies himself an expert....

Ross admits to reading and enjoying Wikipedia, and has even gotten ideas there for future Britannica articles. But the absence of traditional editorial controls makes Wikipedia unsuited to serious research. "How do they know it's accurate?" Ross asks. "People can put down anything."
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/07/12/one_great_source____if_you_can_trust_it/


See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign By John Borland 08.14.07
The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made.
Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material.
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

Wikipedia and Beyond
Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision
Katherine Mangu-Ward | June 2007
"Wikipedia does fail sometimes. The most famous controversy over its accuracy boiled over when John Seigenthaler Sr., a former assistant to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, wrote about his own Wikipedia entry in a November 2005 USA Today op-ed. The entry on Seigenthaler included a claim that he had been involved in both Kennedy assassinations. "We live in a universe of new media," wrote Seigenthaler, "with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research-but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects." The false claim had been added to the entry as a prank in May 2005. When Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia about the error in October, Wales personally took the unusual step of removing the false allegations from the editing history on the page, wiping out the publicly accessible records of the error.
"Wikipedia's other major scandal hasn't been quite as easy for Wales to laugh off, because he was the culprit. In 2005 he was caught with his hand on the edit button, taking advantage of Wikipedia's open editing policy to remove Larry Sanger from the encyclopedia's official history of itself. There has been an ongoing controversy about Wales' attempts to edit his own Wikipedia entry, which is permitted but considered extremely bad form. After a round of negative publicity when the edits were discovered, Wales stopped editing his own profile. But in the site's discussion pages, using the handle "Jimbo Wales," he can be found trying to persuade others to make changes on this and other topics."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119689.html

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880
Wales has also repeatedly revised the description of a search site he founded called Bomis, which included a section with adult photos called "Bomis Babes."

[MikeSun5]

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Because anybody and their mom can edit things, wikipedia is like an encyclopedia of MadLibs.

...still a good time waster, though...

[LadyDamorea]

My rule is that if I read it at Wikipedia, then I research further to prove it accurate. I do this because almost anyone can edit an article there.

[Kahalachan]

If you go to their general disclaimer, you will find this:

(I would avoid Wikipedia, because of its lack of fact checking and that anyone can edit it with unknown credentials.)



That's why Wikipedia is a useful tool for getting you on the right track. Let's say I wanna learn about goblin sharks. I read about their diet. Then I check the source provided about their diet and read that.

If it has no source, I take it with a grain of salt.


Edit:

On topic, Yes to all the questions.

But to make my point, I was browsing Wikipedia on Cat Communication in college and edited it to make it more accurate. Now it looks really good seeing it a couple years later with more edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication

When I was browsing it back then, what was there wasn't cited and wasn't inclusive of the reason cats bite. My cats bit to gently remind me to stop petting but also bit affectionately while being pet. I couldn't just pretend to be an expert just cause I had two cats so I provided a source.

If it's just a paragraph about biting with no source, I would think it's not something you should take seriously. But now that there's a valid source, that can be verified.

[Cainkane1]

yes I go there every day.

[arthwollipot]

My rule is that if I read it at Wikipedia, then I research further to prove it accurate. I do this because almost anyone can edit an article there.Just out of interest, how often do you find something actually wrong?

[Information Analyst]

Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read?
Not that I can recall.
Have you read the entry for your home town?
Yes, all four of them!
Have you read the entry for your home country?
Yes
Have you read the entry for your country's capital?
Yes (as one of the "home towns" above).
Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie?
I sometime read before seeing a film, but usually not. I'll invariably read it after seeing a film, and usually end up editing it.
Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended?
The ones that have pages, yes.
Have you edited an article?
Far too many.
Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently?
Very often.
Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology?
Yes.
Have you read an article about a religion?
Yes.

[Belz...]

All of the above.

Most of the above. I find Wiki to be a good starting point for research, even if it is sometimes shaky.

[Belz...]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png|This article cites some or all of its references or sources without using hyperlinks, which may make the information harder to verify. If the sources are available online, as is often the case for newspapers and academic journals, please help improve this article by adding links to the citations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Imbox_style.png|This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.

That made me chuckle.

[Belz...]

My rule is that if I read it at Wikipedia, then I research further to prove it accurate. I do this because almost anyone can edit an article there.

...though with time a community has developped that more-or-less attempts to ensure the correctness of the information. A self-correcting encyclopedia. Nowhere near perfect but far from being as unreliable as it used to be.

[dudalb]

Because anybody and their mom can edit things, wikipedia is like an encyclopedia of MadLibs.

...still a good time waster, though...


It's fun, the pop culture articles in particular, but on more serious topics.........take it with a ton of salt, particular on controversial topics,where the "facts" change from day to day.
I have to be skeptical about a enclycopedia that ANYBODY can edit, whether they know a damn thing about the topic or not.

[Arthur Denton]

All of the above.

Same here.

[geni]

It's fun, the pop culture articles in particular, but on more serious topics.........take it with a ton of salt, particular on controversial topics,where the "facts" change from day to day.

Controversial topics tend to stay pretty stable simple becuse most of the article text will be a delicate truce that neither side want to change too quickly.

High speed changes are mostly limited to articles covering very current events.

[dudalb]

I disagree. Too many articles seem to change based on which group is posting today.Th best example is the article on Stalin. There seems to be a hard core of Stalin Apologists who try to rewrite ANY criticism of Stalin.

[thinkingman]

Here's information on Wikipedia accuracy problems:

http://nowherenorth.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/accuracy-wikipedia-encyclopedias/

"Okay, this study was published in early 2008 but I didn’t discovered it until recently. “Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles” by Lycy Holman Rector published in Reference Services Review vol. 36, häfte 1, 2008, s. 7-22.

Nine Wikipedia articles, only historical entries, were compared against articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online to compare Wikipedia’s accuracy. and the conclusions as expressed by Holman Rector:

“Wikipedia’s accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources”."


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=B5971624ED12D3D4BFBF FC762150B834?contentType=Article&contentId=1674221
Findings – The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations.


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?contentType=Article&Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2400360102.pdf
Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in
historical articles Lucy Holman Rector Library & Instructional Resources, Harford Community
"Most reference works rely on scholars to write and edit their articles and essays.
Wikipedia, however, allows anyone to contribute and edit encyclopedia entries. In fact,
Wikipedia welcomes amateur contributors and notes that no formal training is required
for posting an entry (Wikipedia, 2007). Unlike other reference sources, individual
Wikipedia entries do not list authors’ full or even real names, and authors do not post
their credentials in terms of expertise in the field of their contributions. Without full
disclosure of authorship, readers cannot verify the expertise of the author or even
conduct further research on his/her credentials. Furthermore, while Wikipedia
encourages authors to cite references, it realizes that many articles do not include
sources (Wikipedia, 2007). The encyclopedia readily admits that there are certainly
opportunities for vandalism, and the lack of an editorial board or governing process
may result in under-coverage of certain topics."

[The Man]

I use Wikipedia all the time, it is a quick and easy reference source that most people can get some knowledge from. The hyperlinks in the text make it easier to also look at referenced terms or concepts you might not be familiar with. The most useful aspect I find are the links to cited reference papers.

On the subject of changes I had quoted part of a Wikipedia article to help make a point in another thread. In just over 12 hours or so (before the next post on that thread) the article had been changed to delete the part I had quoted and that was the only part of the article that had been changed. It was little more then a simple inconvenience for me though as the reference paper that was still cited, even after the editing, said the same thing and I simply quoted that when what I had quoted suddenly disappeared. However the editing did tend to obscure that key point of that paper referenced in that particular part of the article. That is the worst consideration for me, that the article is no longer as accurately representative of the cited paper perhaps simply because I had quoted it is some thread.

[blauregen]

I remember an edit war initiated by at least one ardent skeptic with several accounts on the topic of NLP, which for a time managed to have the article claim that every method employed by NLP-ers is completely ineffective, and at the same time that NLP is a dangerous mind control tool employed for the purpose of indoctrination by various cults.

I usually read the discussion page too, when looking up topics. It doesn't tell you much about the accuracy, but it often gives good insight into the state of the disagreement.

[TheDaver]

Have you been looking for something (meaning nothing specific) to read, and chosen to spend time clicking the 'random article' link on Wikipedia to find something to read? Have you read the entry for your home town? Have you read the entry for your home country? Have you read the entry for your country's capital? Have you read the article about a movie you saw within the past week, after seeing the movie? Before seeing the movie? Have you read the article about your high school? The university you attended? Have you edited an article? Have you read an article relating to a business that was in the news recently? Have you read an article about some topic in Mathematics? Physics? Biology? Have you read an article about a religion?
Yes. Yes. Yes. I think so. No and no. Yes and yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, yes and yes. Yes.

[Careyp74]

I prefer

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Atheism_(religion)

[geni]

I disagree. Too many articles seem to change based on which group is posting today.Th best example is the article on Stalin. There seems to be a hard core of Stalin Apologists who try to rewrite ANY criticism of Stalin.

Here's the some total of changes in the last month to the stalin article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=317243357&oldid=311298357

[TheDaver]

Wikipedia keeps logs of edits and has various levels of ‘protection’, which they can use to block people from editing articles on controversial or delicate subjects. Just because a subject is controversial doesn’t necessarily mean that articles covering it will be inaccurate or biased. It’s also a matter of how much attention the article is getting and how easy it is to find good sources of information.

[geni]

Here's information on Wikipedia accuracy problems:

You've tried to make one paper seem like three and the paper itself says "Certainly this research is too limited in scope to make broad generalizations about the credibility and authority of Wikipedia entries."


Unlike other reference sources, individual Wikipedia entries do not list authors’ full or even real names, and authors do not post their credentials in terms of expertise in the field of their contributions.

Neither do most encyclopedias. Britianica will advertise it's headline names but the journalists and libarians who wrote the bulk of things like biographies of mildly notetable 19th century people not so much.

and the lack of an editorial board or governing process may result in under-coverage of certain topics."

There is little evidence that an editorial board adresses that problem.

[TheDaver]

Here's the some total of changes in the last month to the stalin article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=317243357&oldid=311298357
Compare that to the article on the environmental activist group Sea Shepherd
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=317435395&oldid=311229180

[Darth Rotor]

It needs more porn.

[geni]

It needs more porn.

No it doesn't:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Erotic