Who Trusts Wikipedia?

[Piper]

For most everyday things that I'm curious about, I love Wikipedia. It's easy to find information, and the vast majority of the time the information is correct, and most of the time it isn't correct it is obviously incorrect. Same thing if I'm writing an article, and I simply want to provide a link to a definition (i.e. something that doesn't affect the overall argument). However I do cut the line at serious research, or if I'm actually trying to make a serious argument about something, and as others have said will use it as a starting point instead.

 

[KosmoKen]

In english, I recall I read great many things about actor David Tennant. In spanish, the page seemed to be written by gay community and used references to tabloids only, not the best aspects of his work.

Sometimes when im really, really bored I'll read an article, use Google Translator on the same article in different languages, and look for differences.

 

[Unkas]

Wiki can not replace further literature when going deeper into an issue.

 

[doggie015]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

Enough said...

 

[Pablo49]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

Enough said...

But that's Fox News, it's just as inaccurate.

 

[Urwumpe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

Enough said...

Yes. FoxNews should be named "Murdoch's editorial 24/7". That opinion again misses the reality only by a few AU.

Like for example nobody being forced to only write articles for which he is qualified. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. And it is good that way - otherwise many good articles wouldn't exist. The only bad thing are interest conflicts, but these usually quickly found, and if bad intent is detected, dealt by the vandalism rules.

 

[Andy44]

I think the best way to evaluate Wikipedia is to compare it to what it is replacing: the paper encyclopedia set, which is going the way of the dinosaur. Nobody wants to pay good money for a set of books that takes up a whole shelf in your bookcase which is instantly obsolete the moment it was printed and whose errors, which are many, never get corrected? And which cannot be easily searched by keyboard input, nor can the contents be hyperlinked to or cut and pasted?

The self-correcting nature of the wiki user community is its greatest asset, although most people call it a liability because it also makes it easy for mischief. It's kind of like that TED talk thread I started about institution vs. collaboration.

 

[Artlav]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

Enough said...

Not enough.
The million-dollar question is - are his articles and edits wrong and by how much?

 

[eveningsky339]

I think Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but it should never be used alone.
When i do research i always look for 2-3 different sources that say the same thing before it makes it worth including in any essays.

I would like to echo this sentiment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

Enough said...

Fox News is hardly a neutral source, I'm afraid...

 

[cinder1992]

I have to agree that Faux news is a tad biased.

Anyway, I trust wikipedia, but because it's the second largest (only the US Military DB is larger) information database, It going to have some mistakes and errors. but the number of errors is much smaller than the number of verifiable facts, so I trust it.

 

[ar81]

I think Wikipedia is more reliable than Fox News and Wall Street Journal. At least in Wikipedia they require an objective view, while Wall Street dares to become a science magazine and Fox News coverage seems very pro-statu quo and incomplete to me as some aspects that are not "politically correct" are better covered by other media.

Wall Street Journal: "Earth is cooling down, not warming"
In a few words, since computer models designed by scientists are wrong and they say Earth is warming, then it is getting colder and the proof is the opinion of a journalist.

Instead I prefer BBC
BBC: The arguments made by climate change sceptics

Sceptic
Computer models are the main way of projecting future climate change. But despite decades of development they are unable to model all the processes involved; for example, the influence of clouds, the distribution of water vapour, the impact of warm seawater on ice-shelves and the response of plants to changes in water supply. Climate models follow the old maxim of "you put garbage in, you get garbage out".
Counter
Models will never be perfect and they will never be able to forecast the future exactly. However, they are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling are backed up by theoretical science or observations.

As a rule of thumb, BBC and Reuters are quite reliable in my opinion. This is where I find most of honest criticism that makes you think.

 

[doggie015]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html

Enough said...

It seems I chose the wrong news agency...

How about the telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1544737/Fake-Wikipedia-prof-altered-20000-entries.html

or wikipedia itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy

I could try and find a more unbiased source but the Chaser's war on everything politely refused, something about being off the air

 

[Marcel]

I think the consensus here is "Trust, but verify". What I like about it is that if you find an inaccuracy, you can fix it. I did it myself on one occasion and it gave me a nice sense of community and empowerment.