# How horrible is Wikipedia really? (concrete examples, please) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765 "2015-02-27T14:08:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dorjan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dorjan/32/12440_2.png) [@Dorjan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorjan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/21 "2015-02-27T19:14:52Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > ETA: **Dorjan** , if that doesn’t help, I can’t add much more. To identify the entries would pin my RL identity, which I prefer not to do. I can validate my stories in private, and there are some on board who know the issue (and me) and might vouch for it. It is not a matter of arguing the facts; it is a matter that some pages are “guarded” by dragons who won’t let anyone change what they think should be there - and as some of these people have thousands of pages under their umbrella, it can’t be a matter of superior expertise. It certainly isn’t when a factual reference can be shown for a change that keeps getting reversed. I understand, I was just curious about the articles in question. Feel free to send me a PM if you’d like. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/22 "2015-02-27T20:26:52Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > I think one of the worst was the “Wikipedia-Haymarket Affair”. Timothy Messer-Kruse noticed factual (not opinion) errors in the article, and corrected them, but the corrections were constantly changed back because his edits went against the “accepted majority position.” It didn’t matter that they were in fact correct, with supporting data (actual trial transcripts). In this case, Wikipedia “didn’t let facts get in the way of a good story”. > > I don’t know how common that is, but it raises good questions about accuracy of any given article, and does undermine the myth of impartiality of the website. > > [Article](http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/) trial transcripts are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia because it’s just “he said she said” kind of stuff. It’s just a person making a statement. Only if the trial transcript were being used to prove the results of the trial, would it be acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/23 "2015-02-27T20:28:01Z")
I recently found entries about two persons I doubt ever existed. I’ll try to give a link if I find the time to search for them. There has to be a number of prank articles. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2015, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/24 "2015-02-27T22:23:17Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > trial transcripts are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia because it’s just “he said she said” kind of stuff. It’s just a person making a statement. Only if the trial transcript were being used to prove the results of the trial, would it be acceptable. Did you read the article? The “accepted majority position” was that no evidence was presented at the trial (implying the fix was in, the defendants were effectively railroaded). The transcripts show that evidence was presented. The conflict wasn’t about the nature of the evidence, just its existence. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2015, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/25 "2015-02-27T22:24:59Z")
I think that they mostly get the facts right, but certain pages may have a slant one way or another in terms of what is presented and how they are presented. Take for example the Wikipedia page on [Ben Carson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson). Reading this its pretty clear that it was written by someone very much in favor of Dr. Carson. It highlights and emphasizes his accomplishments, while down playing or omitting any controversy about him. Where it does mention controversy it immediately follows up with a rebuttal. In general I view a wikipedia article as one well informed person’s view that is not too far out of the mainstream and probably has the facts right, but I don’t assume that it is the only possible or even the most accurate view. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2015, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/26 "2015-02-27T22:51:47Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Take for example the Wikipedia page on [Ben Carson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson). Reading this its pretty clear that it was written by someone very much in favor of Dr. Carson. It highlights and emphasizes his accomplishments, while down playing or omitting any controversy about him. Where it does mention controversy it immediately follows up with a rebuttal. The first PR wonk who came up with spending time editing Wikipedia to favor their candidate/pol is a frakking _genius_. The fact of the matter is that there is (relatively) a very small number of people who actually write Wikipedia articles. The vast majority of users never make a single edit, and most who do edit do so in very narrow fields of knowledge. Politicians, artists–hell, anyone with an agenda–can get away with an awful lot, often without anyone really noticing. That makes a big difference to me when it comes to reliability. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/27 "2015-02-27T23:13:42Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > On one article I fought to update and correct, I actually got to the “Do you fucking know who I am?” stage… and the superstar editor basically replied, “I don’t really give a shit. It’s my page to watch and your changes are inappropriate.” Kinda related to the editor aspect, I once added a person to the notable alumni section of my high school–a famous astronaut–and I cited his autobiography. I noticed it was removed with the comment that the citation basically provided no evidence of his attending the school. A couple years later, after said alum had given a talk at the school, he was added back by the same editor, only with the school’s press announcement of the speech as the citation. Yep, that’s more convincing than the guy’s own words. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/28 "2015-02-28T00:06:18Z")
I once got into a dispute about what color a bridge was. For some reason, one person had posted that the bridge was orange. I said this was wrong and that the bridge in question was green. I was told I had to provide an online cite for my claim. I said that I lived a few blocks from the bridge and I could see it by looking out my bedroom window. But this was not an online cite. This is an example of a dispute over an objective fact where somebody who knew what they were talking about was unable to prove their statement. (I was reminded of this because of the recent “what color is this dress?” issue. I could see the bridge in real life. But most people could only see it in photographs. And in some photographs it does look a shade of reddish brown.) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/29 "2015-02-28T00:18:29Z")
Another large problem with Wikipedia is that it’s really easy to find Wikipedia-standard reliable sources on some topics, and almost impossible for a casual user to find sources for the alternative. This is particularly the case when NGOs overwhelmingly adopt a specific position. My personal experience has largely been with issues relating to forestry, ecology etc. because that’s my professional background. because most NGOs in the field are conservation groups, almost all reliable sources that can be readily found will adopt a conservationist position. That then colours edits to Wikipedia. Any attempt to add material that contradicts that position is met with two problems. The first is that material just isn’t freely available. The other is that when it is added, someone inevitably invokes the “fringe theory” policy. Since most “reliable sources” state X, and only Science, Nature and 3 graduate level textbooks state Y, then Y is immediately a fringe theory, and can not be given the same number of lines as Y. Another good example can be seen in the Wikipedia article on deforestation. The article goes on for thousands of words about the negative effects of deforestation. But there is literally _not a single word_ on the positive effects. Obviously there \*are \*positive effects. If there weren’t people would not be spending money to deforest. Obviously for most people living and working in these regions, deforestation is perceived as a net benefit. Yet there is literally not a single word in the article that even implies that deforestation benefits anybody. This isn’t some small oversight here. It’s akin to having an article on motor cars that has a thousand words on car accidents, global warming, drive by shootings etc. and never once mentions why most people see car ownership as a good thing. And when you look at the references for the articles you will see that they are almost all NGO webpages, papers published by NGO employees and so forth. because the organisations publishing in this field are overwhelmingly conservation organisations, the subject becomes swamped by that POV, to the extent that anybody reading the article would be left wondering why anyone would bother spending money removing trees when literally \*all \*the effects are bad. Anybody trying to insert material on the positive effects of deforestation immediately runs into the Wikipedia “Fringe” policy, which says that the amount of line space has to be directly related to the published material. Regardless of accuracy, if Brazilian logging companies and peasant farmers only published 3 journal papers last year, and NGO such as WWF and Greenpeace published hundreds, the POV of people who see deforestation as beneficial can only be given 3 words in the article. The current system basically says that whoever is publishing the most has to get the most line space. That unfortunately means that the \*status quo \*position will often be considered a fringe position. It’s trivially easy to find published materials pointing out the evils of motor cars, deforestation, pesticides, corporations etc. because people who are opposed to those things will always make an effort to publish. It’s much, much harder to find material pointing out the \*benefits \*of motor cars, deforestation, corporations or pesticides because even the owners/, manufacturers of those things see little reason to publish. Individual car makers or corporations might advertise the benefits of their particular product, but nobody bothers much to write about how wonderful cars or corporations are in general because there is no point since people already want to use them. In contrast there are thousands of people who want to advertise how horrible they think these things are. IMO, this will always remain one of Wikipedia biggest failings. In real academic writing, the volume of published material has little bearing on the publishability of any article. In fact the opposite is often true: the more controversial the material the more publishable. But Wikipedia essentially has an official policy of argument from popularity. The amount of line space in an article has to be directly proportional to the number of authors who agree with that position. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/30 "2015-02-28T00:23:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I once got into a dispute about what color a bridge was. For some reason, one person had posted that the bridge was orange. I said this was wrong and that the bridge in question was green. I was told I had to provide an online cite for my claim. I said that I lived a few blocks from the bridge and I could see it by looking out my bedroom window. But this was not an online cite. This is an example of a dispute over an objective fact where somebody who knew what they were talking about was unable to prove their statement. (I was reminded of this because of the recent “what color is this dress?” issue. I could see the bridge in real life. But most people could only see it in photographs. And in some photographs it does look a shade of reddish brown.) The correct action there was to ask for a reference for the claim that the bridge was orange. That way the colour would have been removed altogether. It doesn’t solve the problem but it does remove the erroneous information. Of course the problem with “I can see it and you can trust me” is that 90% of Wikipedia writers are vandals who want to insert false information. There is no way to evaluate whether you are trustworthy. The policy of verifiabliity sucks, but it’s the only possible way that a project like Wikipedia can work. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/31 "2015-02-28T00:33:20Z")
> [@Greg\_Charles](#): > > Now I’m curious. How does the curvature of space promote abortion rights? I mean, good for the curvature of space, but I’m not seeing the connection. {…} Congratulations, you have passed the sanity test! It falsely conflates the _Theory of Relativity_ with _Moral [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]Relativity[/DEL][/COLOR] Relativism_, because the real goal of scientists is to prove God doesn’t exist. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/32 "2015-02-28T01:09:00Z")
> [@Apollon](#): > > Is it really that bad, or are the detractors just butthurt because Wikipedia doesn’t pander to their pet ideologies? Does anyone know of any actual bad articles that Wikipedia currently hosts? Since it’s fluid and can change at any moment, there is no way to even know. But yes, it can be as bad as you can possibly imagine. Examples abound, but they could be useless, as the examples could change between the time I post them, and the time you read them. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > The problem is not as much accuracy as reliability. I have not found all that many factual errors and mistakes, but the ones I do are the kind that calls the entire concept into question. Yes indeed, yes indeed. It’s the omissions that really tell the tale, but since they are “not allowed”, you can’t know it from reading Wikipedia. {{Citation needed}} > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Correcting such errors is also far harder than WP proponents airily suggest. Of that there is little doubt. But it’s even larger than that, as we will see. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Wikipedia is often very good as a starting place or a summary, Unless it simply has no article on something at all. That problem simply dwarfs the usual crank/edit war/vandalism/pranks/bias/political/religious issues which turn it into a cesspool of semi-adolescent anarchistic ignorance. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Wikipedia is often very good as a starting place or a summary, but it should never be taken as the last word on something." Which is interesting, as a real encyclopedia, is often considered the final word for most things. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > If I quote or link to Wikipedia in support of some argument or factual claim, the “I know, I know” essentially means “I don’t believe this, and neither should you, _just because_ Wikipedia says so.” I’m not familiar with the disclaimer, but it does seem wise to include. Of course if it’s something nobody has a conflict over, the articles can be amazing. Truly breathtaking, extensive and informative sources of important shit. I’m serious, they really are useful and valuable. > [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > I think one of the worst was the “Wikipedia-Haymarket Affair”. Timothy Messer-Kruse noticed factual (not opinion) errors in the article, and corrected them, but the corrections were constantly changed back because his edits went against the “accepted majority position.” It didn’t matter that they were in fact correct, with supporting data (actual trial transcripts). In this case, Wikipedia “didn’t let facts get in the way of a good story”. That’s just the tip of a very large iceberg. And hardly the most shameful example of the rampant abuse that goes on there. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Exactly. And the Haymarket affair is one of those historical events that depends much on informed analysis and interpretation as on any listing of dull facts - so it’s consensus by democracy, not by expertise. … I didn’t quote your entire post, but I certainly understand it. Colbert nailed it with “[Wikiality](http://wikiality.wikia.com/Wikiality)” back in 2006. > [@Arch\_Trout](#): > > The circle complete the falsehood remains, presumably for evermore. > > I imagine that kind of thing is not an isolated incident. [xkcd](http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/978:_Citogenesis) > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I guess reading the book the entry is about constitutes “original research” in WhippyLand. Yep. It’s the same for using official data and reports, even the official NWS weather report isn’t a valid source. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The system isn’t perfect. OTOH I’ve also added small updates to various articles and they seem to have stayed put as far as I bothered to notice. As long as nobody cares about something, you can edit all you want. You can even add made up stuff. It won’t matter. > [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > trial transcripts are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia because it’s just “he said she said” kind of stuff. It’s just a person making a statement. Oh the irony of it all. If something somebody says is reported in a news story, or any other “valid” source, then it is OK to use. As long as it agrees with the majority. Except it isn’t even like that. > [@Apollon](#): > > … or are the detractors just butthurt because Wikipedia doesn’t pander to their pet ideologies? That isn’t NPOV at all. Seriously. Here are a few examples, because yes, it really is that bad. And of course they are something I know more than a little about. [The warming hole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_warming_hole) does not exist. (not anywhere there) Of course [the real world](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22the+warming+hole%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=) has a lot of info on it. It’s a scientific matter, with multiple theories about it, in journals of various kinds. Used since 2002, but not a mention of it on Wikipedia. Isolated incident? Hardly. You won’t find [the theory of global warming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_theory_of_global_warming), or [the global warming theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_warming_theory) either. Even when those terms are used in other articles! > [@](#): > > The Greenhouse Conspiracy is a documentary film broadcast by Channel 4 in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990, as part of the Equinox series, which criticised **the theory of global warming** and asserted that scientists critical of **global warming theory** were denied funding.[1] > **[The Greenhouse Conspiracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenhouse_Conspiracy)** > > The Greenhouse Conspiracy is a documentary film broadcast by Channel 4 in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990, as part of the Equinox series, which rejected the scientific consensus on climate change and claimed that scientists critical of global warming theory were denied funding. > It is one of the earliest instances of the suggestion of a conspiracy to promote false claims supporting global warming. Although the title of the program implied the existence of a conspiracy, when interviewed on... > [@wolfpup](#): > > The unwritten (or maybe written) rule seemed to be “if there’s no Wikipedia article for it, it doesn’t exist.” It’s not that simple. The “official” editors there can delete articles. (and boy do they ever) While almost anyone can “edit”, only a certain few can delete. Not just articles, they delete accounts as well. And there is no evidence, no edit trail for what is deleted. (there is a work around however) What about something as real and important as [the CO2 theory of climate change](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22the+CO2+theory+of+climate+change%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10), the original title from an actual scientific paper of great historical importance? Nope. [Not on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_CO2_theory_of_climate_change). (don’t fret, it’s not the naming that is the issue, there is no article anywhere) No [CO2 theory](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22the+CO2+theory%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10) anywhere. Except for [this article on plant evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_evolutionary_developmental_biology), where it appears in the sources, [but the source used goes to a page that says nothing about the theory at all](http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/004766.html). Isolated incident? Not at all. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of things not found on Wikipedia, that actually exist and matter. If you are a member, when you create an article it will tell you if an article with the same name was previously deleted. (all that being said, most of the deletions are a good thing, since it’s a huge spam magnet) {{Citation needed}} > [@Blake](#): > > But Wikipedia essentially has an official policy of argument from popularity. If that were the only issue, it wouldn’t be that bad. The real [people](http://thewikipedian.net/tag/william-connolley/) problems [are much more serious](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.single.html), unless you simply write it off as a valid source when it comes to contentious and serious matters about our world. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/33 "2015-02-28T01:48:56Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The real people problems [are much more serious](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.single.html) I have to say, that is the most accurate and succinct description of the problems with Wikipedia that I have ever read. I particularly like: > [@](#): > > I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka’s The Trial I have ever witnessed, with editors and administrators giving conflicting and confusing advice, complaints getting “boomeranged” onto complainants who then face disciplinary action for complaining, and very little consistency in the standards applied. In my short time there, I repeatedly observed editors lawyering an issue with acronyms, only to turn around and declare “Ignore all rules!” when faced with the same rules used against them. That is a perfect description of the Wikipedia “moderation” system. All rules lawyering, intimidation and arbitrary smackdowns for ill-defined breaches. In my early days I was on the receiving end of one of these. Another editor blatantly broke the “3 revert rule”, which is supposed to be the only hard-and-fast, never to be broken, bright line rule of Wikipedia. You can not revert an article more than three time in a 24 hour period. When I reported it, I was blocked for 24 hours for reverting 3 times, which isn’t against any rule as far as anyone can tell, and the person who broke the three revert rule got a Mod note. The explanation was that I had broken some other obscure Wikipedia policy with my edits and they had not. I was told that in future I should report editors when \*they \*made three reverts and I had made only two. And when I subsequently did that, the complaint was instantly deleted because the editor had only made three reverts and hadn’t broken the three revert rule. And the actual complaints process was bureaucratic beyond belief. Before you could even make a complaint you had to fill out about 6 different forms, post one each on the home page and contact page of the user you wanted to report, two versions on the article page that you were complaining about, include HTML links to all the changes made over the past week etc. Then the complainant would invoke a policy called NoSnowonMtEverest or something, which you then had to try to find. But you can’t find it by searching on Wikipedia itself. It’s on some other Wiki that you have to try to find thorugh Google. Then when you read through three pages of text, you can respond. Which is met by a rebuttal invoking the policy PaddingtonBearWearsPyjamas. And so forth for weeks. Utterly bizarre and unworkable. As the article says: the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semiautomated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit. Fantastic link FXMastermind. Bookmarked for future reference. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/34 "2015-02-28T05:33:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I once got into a dispute about what color a bridge was. …I said that I lived a few blocks from the bridge and **I could see it by looking** out my bedroom window. bolding mine. Well, clearly that is “original research”, which is not allowed, you see. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/35 "2015-02-28T05:57:11Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > I think one of the worst was the “Wikipedia-Haymarket Affair”. Timothy Messer-Kruse noticed factual (not opinion) errors in the article, and corrected them, but the corrections were constantly changed back because his edits went against the “accepted majority position.” It didn’t matter that they were in fact correct, with supporting data (actual trial transcripts). In this case, Wikipedia “didn’t let facts get in the way of a good story”. > > I don’t know how common that is, but it raises good questions about accuracy of any given article, and does undermine the myth of impartiality of the website. > > [Article](http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/) I’d say the policy that minority positions cannot overwrite majority is reasonable. After all, Holocaust deniers will use hard evidence in their case and pointing out why those facts are irrelevant takes a panel of subject experts who already know the answer or a lot of digging by the Wikipedia editors, either of which is infeasible. And it would be easy for one guy to recreate history, via the Wikipedia, by inserting lots of misleading truths that build up to a larger untruth. So in the interest of making it reasonable to edit, while not allowing nefarious individuals to highjack reality, you have to enforce that the Wikipedia maintain parity with the majority view. But that’s for the main body and the overview sections of an article. Many articles have sections labelled “Criticism” or the like, where new and competing ideas are listed. The person in the article could easily have asked the editor if he could create a section like that for the article. Instead, he decided that his view of history was righter than all the other history books in the world and usurped the main article. Getting slapped down for being a butthead isn’t necessarily unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/36 "2015-02-28T06:15:21Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Another good example can be seen in the Wikipedia article on deforestation. The article goes on for thousands of words about the negative effects of deforestation. But there is literally _not a single word_ on the positive effects. Obviously there \*are \*positive effects. If there weren’t people would not be spending money to deforest. Obviously for most people living and working in these regions, deforestation is perceived as a net benefit. Yet there is literally not a single word in the article that even implies that deforestation benefits anybody. > > This isn’t some small oversight here. It’s akin to having an article on motor cars that has a thousand words on car accidents, global warming, drive by shootings etc. and never once mentions why most people see car ownership as a good thing. I think you’re being overly literal with the word “deforestation”. Yes, technically, it just means “the removal of forest”, but as used by humans, the word is a pejorative. It refers specifically to the harmful effects of removing the forest. Take another pejorative as an example, “gluttony”. Technically, it could be said to mean nothing different than “zeal”, someone who is being very gung-ho about enjoying life. But I wouldn’t expect the pages on those two words to be very similar. The English language decided that, rather than modifying words with “too much” and “too little”, it made more sense to come up with all new words with the implication of “too” being built into them. Overall, I’d say that the lack of positivity on a page for deforestation seems reasonable. The lack of explanation for the goal of [logging](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logging), on the other hand, I would agree has been done in by conservationist sympathies or lazy writing. That the only “See also” page is about climate change would lead me to believe the former. But I think that an editor would have a hard time stopping you from bulking out the page with information about the uses of wood and adding indications as to which are modern logging practices and which are historic. You could easily add links to articles on “woodworking” and so on and, again, I would expect that the content would remain. ---
**Author:** ![from\_a\_to\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5fc32e/32.png) [@from\_a\_to\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/from_a_to_z)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/37 "2015-02-28T06:42:09Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > [Previous Dope threads on the subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=11884509). That link now is “Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.”, reminding me of the urban legend of “[The Vanishing Hotel Room](http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/hotel.asp)”. However, a memorable Straight Dope story by **Una Persson** about Wikipedia is from July 2012, post #11 in “[Is Wikipedia more reliable …?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=658436)”. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/38 "2015-02-28T07:36:45Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I think you’re being overly literal with the word “deforestation”. Yes, technically, it just means “the removal of forest”, but as used by humans, the word is a pejorative. It refers specifically to the harmful effects of removing the forest. 😕 First, suggesting that an encylcopaedia can ever be “overliteral” is like accusing a dictionary of being overliteral. the whole point of an enclyclopaedia is to be literal. Secondly that’s not the definition given in the article itself. Which simply makes the article even more horrible. The article puprports to be about deforestation as the term is used in the literature. But the literature \*never \*uses the term specifically to refer to the harmful effects of removing the forest. Worse yet, because the literature cited refers to the standard definition, if the article is using your definition then the literature doesn’t actually support what is being said. For example, if the literature says “x hectares of deforestation occur each year”, then it means just that. But if the article makes that same statement but actually means “x hectares of harmful removal of trees occurs each year”, that is not what the author of the literature meant and the claim is totally unsupported. It’s either an editorial article masquerading as an encyclopaedia article about a completely different topic, or it’s an encyclopaedia article with a large amount of information excluded. Either way it’s a fantastic example of where Wikipedia is really horrible. > [@](#): > > Take another pejorative as an example, “gluttony”. Technically, it could be said to mean nothing different than “zeal”, someone who is being very gung-ho about enjoying life. But I wouldn’t expect the pages on those two words to be very similar. But the Wikipedia page states that the definition being used is “over-indulgence and over-consumption”, and the article is perfectly consistent with that. In contrast, the deforestation article does not say that the definition being used is “the harmful effects of removing the forest”, and the article is inconsistent with the definition given: “removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter converted to a non-forest use”. > [@](#): > > Overall, I’d say that the lack of positivity on a page for deforestation seems reasonable. Honestly? How about if the page on abortion devoted thousands of words to the negative effects of abortions, but never once mentioned the benefits of abortions or even the reasons why women have abortions. Would that also seem reasonable to you? Would it be more reasonable so long as the editor was using a definition “as used by humans” where the word is a pejorative that refers specifically to the harmful effects of killing unborn babies? The whole point of an encyclopaedia article is to provide an overview of _the subject of the article_. The subject is defined in the header. If the subject is defined as “removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter converted to a non-forest us”, which is the UN definition, then if the article devotes thousands of words to how terrible that is never once mentions the benefits people gain or even why people do it, that is a horrible article. If that massive shortcoming is due to someone writing one definition in the header and then writing the article about a completely different subject based on a definition they made up, that doesn’t make it better, it makes it worse. > [@](#): > > But I think that an editor would have a hard time stopping you from bulking out the page with information about the uses of wood and adding indications as to which are modern logging practices and which are historic. You could easily add links to articles on “woodworking” and so on and, again, I would expect that the content would remain. For logging, possibly. For deforestation, probably not because Wikipedia has an official policy of _argumentum ad populum_. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/39 "2015-02-28T07:49:31Z")
> [@Arch\_Trout](#): > > Maybe not quite what you are asking for but I know for a fact that someone changed the biography of a well known actor to have a complete lie inserted. > Nothing major just saying they had won something that they didn’t. > > This insertion took place to see if any publications would put that piece of information in that persons obituary when they died. > Seven years later that person died and a few publications had the lie from wikipedia in their obituary in a very obvious cut and paste. Print editions as well as online editions. > > The falsehood was removed from wikipedia but as it had been reported in a “reliable” publication the falsehood was put back in with a citation to the publication that had lifted it directly from the incorrect wikipedia article. The circle complete the falsehood remains, presumably for evermore. Which actor? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/40 "2015-02-28T07:54:36Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I’d say the policy that minority positions cannot overwrite majority is reasonable. It is. The trouble is that Wikipedia policy isn’t that majority \*opinion \*counts, it’s that majority \*expression \*counts. And those are two very different things. For example, I assume that you agree that there \*are \*benefits to deforestation? Somebody must be benefiting or they wouldn’t be working to deforest, right? And I assume that you agree that the majority of experts also accept that there are benefits? Now the challenge: find me a single source that indicates that this is a majority opinion. This is where the popularity policy falls flat on its face. On a a lot of issues the vast majority of the material supports one position, despite actual expert consensus being either different or at least more nuanced. IOW while all experts agree that there are benefits to deforestation, it’s damn hard to find someone who says that. In contrast 5 seconds with Google will find a plethora of experts expounding on the negative effects of deforestation. that doesn’t mean that those same experts don’t agree that there are benefits, just that they don’t see the point of writing about it. Other experts don’t need to here that because they already know, and the public don’t need to here it because there message is about the harm being done by deforestation. The point here is that only an expert in the field can actually know what the majority opinion is on this topic. However the Wikipedia policy is that majority opinion \*must \*to be divined by representation in the literature. If 99.99% of publications mention the negative effects of deforestation and only .01% mention the benefits then according to Wikipedia the \*viewpoint \*that there are benefits can only get 0.01% of the line space. It doesn’t matter is 100% of experts agree that there are benefits, all that matters is the proportion of that position in the literature. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765.md?page=3)