# 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:** 3
**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, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/41 "2015-02-28T07:56:21Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > 😕 > > First, suggesting that an encylcopaedia can ever be “overliteral” is like accusing a dictionary of being overliteral. I said that **you** were being overly literal. I made no such accusation of the Wikipedia nor any other encyclopedia. (By which I’m not arguing against your post, I’m just correcting this specific inaccurate statement.) ---
**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, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/42 "2015-02-28T08:15:13Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I said that **you** were being overly literal. I made no such accusation of the Wikipedia nor any other encyclopedia. That’s exactly my point. My criticism used a standard, literal definition. You claim that Wikipedia is using some non-standard, non-literal definition. A definition that appears in no dictionary on Earth. A definition at odds with the definition the article itself claims to be using. You defend that usage by asserting that I am being over-literal. I retort by saying that it is impossible for an encyclopaedia to be over-literal, and thus my criticism that is based on the encyclopaedia not being literal enough is perfectly valid. That is the whole point. When someone says that Wikipedia is being misleading and erroneous by not using literal definitions, responding that the criticiser is being too literal isn’t a rebuttal. You are actually supporting the cristicism and acknowledging that Wikipedia is horrible. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/43 "2015-02-28T19:16:40Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You are actually supporting the cristicism and acknowledging that Wikipedia is horrible. It’s tempting to leave that as the last word, but hardly fair, as I disagree with the wide tar brush being used. A lot of Wikipedia is very good, especially pop culture, like finding out about TV shows, or movies. Things that an actual Encyclopedia wouldn’t cover at all. Like when you just watched [Dumb and Dumber To](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_and_Dumber_To#Cast) and you see Bill Murray in the credits but you have no idea who “Ice Pick” is, then Wikipedia can be just great. That is until you look at the Talk Page and realize there are long running conflicts about the movie going on. About a movie. When you realize people will fight pretty much forever over anything, like one crew members costume from a Star Trek episode from 1966, the huge problems with contentious issues might become believable. Unless you think like magic these problems will be solved by consensus. Then there are no issues really, it’s all good. Since I put up several examples of what I consider huge failings, and nobody has responded to them yet, should I go on? Hardly. What would be the point? Oh right, it makes me feel smart and important, which is also a huge problem with Wikipedia. People actually think they own an article, and act like complete assholes about it. The newcomer or the expert on an issue will discover this quite quickly. But the deletion and stark refusal to “allow” sources, actual valid sources of information, I consider that the most depressing and serious issue, considering it is supposed to be about knowledge, information, a source of actual real things. In that it is truly horrible. It’s viewed as a horrible experiment gone completely wrong. Consider the poor soul “notable” enough **to actually have a page about them** , about their life. Imagine you, who know your own life quite well, reading a Wikipedia page about yourself, and finding it a complete battleground for whatever ideology and political battle somebody has, a disaster of a page? Is anyone going to be able to convince you Wikipedia is reliable? That it represents a NPOV about anything? Just try changing anything there that is the least bit contentious, it’s educational. God have mercy on your soul if you try and add sources, and actually try to make an article balanced. Seriously, if you have any doubts, give it a shot. Nothing could be more educational than seeing for yourself. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/44 "2015-02-28T23:01:18Z")
I have no idea how any of that relates to anything that I have posted. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/45 "2015-03-01T08:55:40Z")
[**The Most Controversial Wikipedia Articles Worldwide**](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/08/daily-chart-1?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/editwars) Includes the 5 most contested articles in different languages. ---
**Author:** ![Apollon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Apollon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollon)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/46 "2015-03-01T14:10:42Z")
> [@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.) While I can understand how frustrating this must feel for you, I can’t blame them for not taking your word on it. Pictures can sometimes be wrong, but most of the time they aren’t. They tend to be more reliable than some anonymous dude on the internet. I’m sure, you would have said the same, were you in their shoes. So, with all due respect, I believe it’s to Wikipedia’s credit that they don’t take your word on it. That you were - in fact - correct, makes no difference. The policy is statistically quite sound. ---
**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:** [March 1, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/47 "2015-03-01T16:22:03Z")
> [@Apollon](#): > > While I can understand how frustrating this must feel for you, I can’t blame them for not taking your word on it. But the issue was “they” took somebodies word on it, which is why the arfticle was wrong in the first place. > [@Apollon](#): > > That you were - in fact - correct, makes no difference. . That should be the official motto for Wikipedia. > [@Apollon](#): > > The policy is statistically quite sound. No, it’s not. Because some people put all kinds of false and biased crap into articles, and there is now way to fix it, that doesn’t destroy your faith in people. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/48 "2015-03-01T17:08:26Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Well, clearly that is “original research”, which is not allowed, you see. As I said earlier, some WPdragons are absurdly rigid about that rule, not allowing direct quotes from books that are the subject of the entry and such - only, only-only, allowing citations of such quotes from another reference. That’s okay, I got around that rule in the most satisfying possible way a few years ago. I was not allowed to enter a simple factual statement about a work - “This page shows such-and-such” - so I created my own convoluted loop of material that was then accepted as its own chain of sites. (The entry, a simple observation about the work in question, sparked a much larger chain of discussion and investigation in many places.) ---
**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:** [March 1, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/49 "2015-03-01T19:29:40Z")
> [@camille](#): > > [**The Most Controversial Wikipedia Articles Worldwide**](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/08/daily-chart-1?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/editwars)Includes the 5 most contested articles in different languages. Very interesting, thanks. > [@Blake](#): > > I have no idea how any of that relates to anything that I have posted. It probably doesn’t. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > As I said earlier, some WPdragons are absurdly rigid about that rule, not allowing direct quotes from books that are the subject of the entry and such - only, only-only, allowing citations of such quotes from another reference. This is a very common problem on Wikipedia. > [@](#): > > The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] > **[Wikipedia:No original research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)** > > Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.\[a\] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly sup... Since obviously the word “exist” isn’t clear, there is a footnote to this. > [@](#): > > By “exists”, the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. > **[Wikipedia:No original research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_ref-Exists_1-0)** > > Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.\[a\] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly sup... So when somebody objects to actually using a book, they don’t want YOU (or anyone else) who hasn’t published in a reliable source, to simply add information based on the actual source. So if you read a book or watch a movie, YOU can’t add anything from it to an article, because then it’s original research. Only, as we see an example of above, only if you publish something, then YOU can add that. Which leads to the next major issue, reliable sources. At which point Wikipedia, in it’s policy page on reliability, defines Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information. Yes, according to the official Wikipedia rules, **Wikipedia is not considered a valid reliable source** , and it can not be used in any Wikipedia article as a source. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying\_reliable\_sources#Self-published\_sources\_.28online\_and\_paper.29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29) There is of course an exception to this rule, and that is when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and rules, Wikipedia is the only source of information that matters. So for policy, Wikipedia is the ultimate authority on Wikipedia. For everything else, Wikipedia is no a valid source of information, for Wikipedia articles. Some may see the humor in this Meta self defining recursive loop. Most people will experience TEGO and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/50 "2015-03-01T19:42:35Z")
I have contributed over 100 edits to Wikipedia, most of them minor grammatical revisions/edits. Since none of them have been deleted, or even challenged, I can only conclude that Wikipedia is reliable. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JimSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@JimSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimSC)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/51 "2015-03-01T20:18:37Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > 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. > > 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). I agree with much of what you have posted in this thread, but I don’t understand your criticisms in the above quote. A search of WP for _Global warming_, returns articles titled “Global warming”, “Global warming controversy”, and “Global warming conspiracy theory”. Other searches find articles titled “Climate change”, “Climate change mitigation”, “Climate change denial”, and “Greenhouse effect”. There is no article titled “CO2 theory”, but CO2 is mentioned well over a hundred times in these seven articles. There are many valid criticisms of Wikipedia, but I don’t think they’re shying away from discussing this particular topic. Or are you saying that the coverage of this topic is one-sided? ---
**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:** [March 2, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/52 "2015-03-02T02:03:00Z")
> [@JimSC](#): > > I agree with much of what you have posted in this thread, but I don’t understand your criticisms in the above quote. A search of WP for _Global warming_, returns articles titled “Global warming”, “Global warming controversy”, and “Global warming conspiracy theory”. I’m quite aware of that, however you will find the horrible situation is that none of those articles define or explain the global warming theory. Nor does Wikipedia have any entry for it under any name. Even the articles on Plass, Callendar and Arrhenius don’t contain the theory that is credited to them. How bad can it be? The [article on Plass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass) does not mention “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”, even when that paper is listed as a source of the article! No article for “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” on Wikipedia. Hell, the article on “the history of climate change science” never mentions it. In fact, the only name used in that horrible page is “greenhouse-effect theory”, which isn’t even the same theory. And of course there is no article about “greenhouse-effect theory”. Same for the [Greenhouse effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) page. The only mention of any theory is in the references, Wood, R.W. (1909). “Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse”. But that is about the original idea that atmospheric gases cause a greenhouse effect, not about the CO2 theory, which is about an increase in CO2 causing a global climate change. That theory, attributed to both Plass and Callendar, isn’t mentioned on the articles about the men. It’s horrible, and it is not some careless mistake. > [@JimSC](#): > > There are many valid criticisms of Wikipedia, but I don’t think they’re shying away from discussing this particular topic. Or are you saying that the coverage of this topic is one-sided? I don’t really know what is going on, but there is no article, much less any encyclopedic work about what many consider the most pressing issue mankind faces. Reading something like [THE CARBON DIOXIDE THEORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE: EMERGENCE, ECLIPSE, AND REE[URL=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary\_of\_climate\_change”]MERGENCE, CA. 1850-1950](https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/31525.pdf) should make it obvious it is an actual scientific “thing”, not some nebulous idea. But Wikipedia has no entry for it, no article. It’s not just that there is no redirect, there is nothing to redirect to. The following all are about the same thing, and not one of them has a page on Wikipedia. (remember, this is possibly the most important issue facing mankind) The CO2 effect The CO2 theory the enhanced greenhouse effect the anthropogenic greenhouse effect global warming theory theory of global warming The greenhouse theory of global warming The Callendar effect The carbon dioxide theory of the ice ages Basic global warming theory or “Standard global warming theory”. It’s not that those terms aren’t used, all of them are. > [@](#): > > Standard global warming theory predicts that the stratosphere will cool.[[33](http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/351.htm)] > **[Ozone depletion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion)** > > Ozone depletion consists of two related events observed since the late 1970s: a steady lowering of about four percent in the total amount of ozone in Earth's atmosphere,\[citation needed\] and a much larger springtime decrease in stratospheric ozone (the ozone layer) around Earth's polar regions. The latter phenomenon is referred to as the ozone hole. There are also springtime polar tropospheric ozone depletion events in addition to these stratospheric events. > The main causes of ozone depletion an... Still want to argue? To defend this example of how horrible Wikipedia can actually be? Here’s an article named “[Glossary of climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climate_change)”. It’s been “edited” for ten years now. It’s not new. It does not even contain the word “theory”, much less any term for global warming theory, and of course no definition. You will not find, at present, any description, definition or explanation of global warming theory anywhere on Wikipedia. Much less the predicted changes, or how we would be able to detect the human effect on climate. That is simply too horrible to imagine that it is even possible, by “chance” or from ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/53 "2015-03-02T03:28:46Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s not that those terms aren’t used, all of them are. [Ozone depletion - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion) > > Still want to argue? To defend this example of how horrible Wikipedia can actually be? Here’s an article named “[Glossary of climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climate_change)”. It’s been “edited” for ten years now. It’s not new. > > It does not even contain the word “theory”, much less any term for global warming theory, and of course no definition. :dubious: > [@](#): > > Global warming (GW) - usually: the warming trend over the past century or so; also: any period in which the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere increases; also the theory of such changes. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > You will not find, at present, any description, definition or explanation of global warming theory anywhere on Wikipedia. Much less the predicted changes, or how we would be able to detect the human effect on climate. > > That is simply too horrible to imagine that it is even possible, by “chance” or from ignorance. Actually following the glossary link one can see what in context is what you are talking about: > **[Climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)** > > Present-day climate change includes both global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its wider effects on Earth's climate. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases. These ga Cl... > [@](#): > > Greenhouse gases > Main articles: Greenhouse gas, Greenhouse effect, Radiative forcing and Carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere > > The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in a planet’s atmosphere warm its lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall,[61] was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896,[62] and was developed in the 1930s through 1960s by Guy Stewart Callendar.[63] And of course, as pointed many times before it is not just one theory that the climate scientists are using to point at was it is going on, since this depends on many lines of inquiry, like with the link of tobacco and cancer, there are several theories used to conclude that humans are currently the main cause of the current increase in warming observed, demanding that there should be a single theory to explain this is indeed at the same obfuscation level as the deniers that tobacco smoke causes cancer continue to demand, so demanding that Wikipedia should follow the definitions that you want is part of the problem not the solution. > **[The Greenhouse Effect is Real – Here’s why](https://thinc.blog/2011/06/15/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why/)** > > In an “Open letter from the Scientific Community”,  a series has begun this week in The Conversation,  (a not-for-profit news service  backed by CSIRO – Australia’s leading … As Peter Sinclair point out, there is no single paper or theory that explains how it was found that tobacco smoke that is not how science works, and it is then not likely that Wikipedia will follow what contrarians want to make Wikipedia say. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/54 "2015-03-02T04:10:42Z")
> [@JimSC](#): > > There is no article titled “CO2 theory”, but CO2 is mentioned well over a hundred times in these seven articles. \ The word “atom” appears 107 times in the article [Atomic Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#History). But when you search for Atomic Theory on Wikipedia, it does not redirect to the Atom article. It could, and of course the word theory appears a dozen times [in the Atom article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom). What would make it horrible would be if the article named “Atom” had no history of the atomic theory, or as we see with the global warming page, never mentions the theory at all. That’s what the OP asked for, an example of something horrible about Wikipedia. The funny thing about this is, of course, the global warming page, or anything else mentioned, can change, even as you read this post. Somebody could be editing it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/55 "2015-03-02T04:33:46Z")
Correcting this: > **[The Greenhouse Effect is Real – Here’s why](https://climatecrocks.com/2011/06/15/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why/)** > > In an “Open letter from the Scientific Community”,  a series has begun this week in The Conversation,  (a not-for-profit news service  backed by CSIRO – Australia’s leading … As Peter Sinclair points out, there is no single paper or theory that explains how it was found that tobacco smoke causes cancer; that is not how science works, and it is then not likely that Wikipedia will follow what contrarians of science want to make them say. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/56 "2015-03-02T04:39:20Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > As I said earlier, some WPdragons are absurdly rigid about that rule, not allowing direct quotes from books that are the subject of the entry and such - only, only-only, allowing citations of such quotes from another reference. > > That’s okay, I got around that rule in the most satisfying possible way a few years ago. I was not allowed to enter a simple factual statement about a work - “This page shows such-and-such” - so I created my own convoluted loop of material that was then accepted as its own chain of sites. (The entry, a simple observation about the work in question, sparked a much larger chain of discussion and investigation in many places.) And the entry you changed and cites you provided were? The OP did ask for concrete examples. ---
**Author:** ![Arch\_Trout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9f8e36/32.png) [@Arch\_Trout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arch_Trout)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/57 "2015-03-02T12:29:56Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Which actor? A famous American TV actor. Not saying any more than that. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/58 "2015-03-02T16:18:59Z")
> [@Arch\_Trout](#): > > A famous American TV actor. > Not saying any more than that. geeze, what are you afraid of? Or are you just so pleased at yourself for knowing something no other 'doper does? This thread is for concrete examples. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/59 "2015-03-02T16:23:13Z")
Or maybe it is an urban legend that turned out not to be true? ---
**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:** [March 2, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/60 "2015-03-02T16:57:15Z")
Considering the number of nutjobs and dangerous cranks on the internet, protecting one’s identity isn’t a bad idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765.md?page=4)