# 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:** 4
**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 2, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/61 "2015-03-02T17:06:22Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > And the entry you changed and cites you provided were? The OP did ask for concrete examples. The material would be connected to my RL identity. It’s also since been… abraded away, leaving a less interesting entry, but it served its purposes. ---
**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 2, 2015, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/62 "2015-03-02T17:09:38Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > 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. 🙂 I have probably contributed at least that many small fixes, updates or one-sentence additions. I still do, when the mood strikes. Most survive but a truly irritating number are reverted within hours, if not the hour - and I am talking about rewriting a sentence for better clarity without changing a jot of meaning or content. WP is like the US - a “completely classless society” with a solidly stratified hierarchy, the upper ranges of which guard their privileges jealously and exercise their power because they can. You have to be one of them, or stay below their radar to be any kind of successful contributor. ---
**Author:** ![GreenElf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@GreenElf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenElf)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/63 "2015-03-02T17:18:53Z")
I rarely see any blatantly false information on Wiki. I have sometimes noticed missing information or incomplete lists though. Still, it seems to me, Wiki often has the most complete information available online for many topics. ---
**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 2, 2015, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/64 "2015-03-02T17:31:01Z")
> [@GreenElf](#): > > I rarely see any blatantly false information on Wiki. Blatantly false information is not the problem; in most cases, it’s corrected by the herd mind within hours. Incomplete entries usually mean that not enough people are interested to collect and add the information. The problem with Wikipedia was concisely summed up by Mr. W.P. Rogers, whose insight is only enhanced by his thoughtful choice of initials. “It ain’t what we know that causes us trouble. It’s what we know that ain’t so.” It is the entries in Wikipedia that contain questionable information that are the problem - not whether it has the atomic weight of ruthenium correctly listed to the sixth decimal place. WP appeals to a decreasingly sophisticated user base that tends not to question anything they read there, because so many experts have assured them that every single entry for a chemical element couldn’t be accurater. My cite for the last is the increasing number of “journalists” who will repeat anything they find there as a fact they actually got from a reliable source. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/65 "2015-03-02T17:31:32Z")
I was in tears laughing at the River Suck entry as it stated something like “The River Suck joins the River Swilly near Athlone to form the Suck-Swilly.” It was left unedited for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/66 "2015-03-02T20:06:19Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > The problem with Wikipedia was concisely summed up by Mr. W.P. Rogers, whose insight is only enhanced by his thoughtful choice of initials. “It ain’t what we know that causes us trouble. It’s what we know that ain’t so.” It is the entries in Wikipedia that contain questionable information that are the problem - not whether it has the atomic weight of ruthenium correctly listed to the sixth decimal place. WP appeals to a decreasingly sophisticated user base that tends not to question anything they read there, because so many experts have assured them that every single entry for a chemical element couldn’t be accurater. > > My cite for the last is the increasing number of “journalists” who will repeat anything they find there as a fact they actually got from a reliable source. All of that may be true but I question how far one should generalize it. Such as my experience with Wikipedia has been, including browsing subject areas that I do know something about, I may have had minor criticisms here and there but I’ve never really turned up what I would regard as a tendency to wholesale bias or selective omission. What I _ **have** _ run into, in general discussions touching on controversial areas, is claims along the lines that “Wikipedia is unreliable and useless”, especially in pseudo-controversial areas like the basic facts of climate change – that is, areas that are being aggressively spun as controversial but are actually well established science. This is a trope that always seems to be employed by those who strongly advocate views that are far removed from the mainstream science. Those who condemn Wikipedia this way are generally equally quick to condemn authoritative scientific sources, too, for the same reason. And this is because Wikipedia tends to be resistant to that kind of spin – it tends to be representative of the mainstream consensus in its overall treatment of major scientific topics, by virtue of requirements like citations to credible sources. You can see how this causes distress among advocates of fringe viewpoints, conspiracy theorists, etc. I’m just concerned that your well-meaning comment, while no doubt justified by your own subject-matter-specific experience, could be interpreted so broadly as to discredit an otherwise generally sound source of information. Question what you read in Wikipedia, by all means – you might be reading a recently hacked page, or it might be wrong for some other reason – but don’t dismiss the entire venture, because it’s an extremely useful resource. TL;DR version: It ain’t that bad. 🙂 ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/67 "2015-03-02T20:31:11Z")
It helps to remember that some people. and organizations, consider what appears on Wikipedia actually matters, a lot. In which case there may be an unending effort to change, delete, and otherwise spin an encyclopedic article to appear as as a politically correct one. ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/68 "2015-03-02T20:32:28Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Blatantly false information is not the problem; And the OP didn’t ask for example of that as well. In fact, that has nothing to do with the “debate”, whatever the debate actually may be. [[citation needed]] ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/69 "2015-03-02T21:19:45Z")
> [@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. > > I imagine that kind of thing is not an isolated incident. According to his online journal, Neil Gaiman had [something similar](http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/one-book-one-twitter-one-wondering.html)happen with a bit of business that he made up for his book, American Gods. So mythology is being re-written in wikiality. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > . . . Which is interesting, as a real encyclopedia, is often considered the final word for most things. . . . Actually, encyclopedias are also best used as a starting place. They don’t pretend to be primary sources. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/70 "2015-03-02T22:12:13Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > According to his online journal, Neil Gaiman had [something similar](http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/one-book-one-twitter-one-wondering.html)happen with a bit of business that he made up for his book, American Gods. So mythology is being re-written in wikiality. > **[One Book, One Twitter, One Wondering Author, One Wandering Character](https://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/one-book-one-twitter-one-wondering.html)** > > Over on Twitter, the 1B1T (One Book, One Twitter) book club has begun doing its world-wide-book-clubby thing. They are reading AMERICAN GODS... That is awesome > [@Yllaria](#): > > Actually, encyclopedias are also best used as a starting place. They don’t pretend to be primary sources. OMG ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/71 "2015-03-03T05:27:05Z")
For the most part, Wikipedia is a terrific starting point for, well pretty much anything. I also enjoy the regular updates and the “this day in history” section. Purely anecdotal, but I was banned from editing the Elvis Presley section because of a compulsive editor whose raisin d’être appears to be “proving” that every celebrity is gay. Used the same user name as I do here. It was a very unpleasant experience so I rarely edit anything anymore. ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/72 "2015-03-03T06:13:47Z")
> [@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. This _Simpsons_ quote seems appropriate: **Bart:** So Dean Martin would show up at the last minute and do everything in just one take? **Homer:** That’s right. **Bart:** But Wikipedia said he was passionate about rehearsal! **Homer:** Don’t you worry about Wikipedia. We’ll change it when we get home. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/73 "2015-03-03T08:13:05Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I once heard from someone that apocryphal secondary sources are unreliable. Thats not what my mates neighbour in the pub says . And he should know, he once met somebody who knew a scientist or something , who told him differently . ---
**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 3, 2015, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/74 "2015-03-03T12:06:29Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > 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. I don’t want anyone to change it that’s what I’m afraid of. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2015, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/75 "2015-03-03T12:37:39Z")
> [@Arch\_Trout](#): > > I don’t want anyone to change it that’s what I’m afraid of. So what? Wikipedia keeps track of all edits pretty much indefinitely, such as this former article on the [zipper storage bag.](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zipper_storage_bag&diff=455395306&oldid=455392484) ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/76 "2015-03-03T16:53:46Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > According to his online journal, Neil Gaiman had [something similar](http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/one-book-one-twitter-one-wondering.html)happen with a bit of business that he made up for his book, American Gods. So mythology is being re-written in > [@](#): > > Originally posted by **Neil Gaiman** > I followed a link on, um, something in _American Gods_, to its Wikipedia entry. And read an entry about something that I’d made up (because it fitted, because it worked, and because I didn’t think anyone would mind) that cited a reference book that talked about the thing I made up. The reference book was written some years after\* American Gods\* was published, and the person who wrote the reference book has obviously cribbed a little information from _American Gods_. > > The last time, some years ago, I’d checked the Wikipedia entry, it was accurate, and noted that **the thing in question** had started in _American Gods_. Now all reference to me and to _American Gods_ has gone. It now has, after all, a reference book link. And something that I made up has become, to all intents and purposes, a fact. [My bold] [slight hijack] So, does anybody know what the thing is question is? ---
**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 3, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/77 "2015-03-03T17:02:51Z")
Yes ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/78 "2015-03-03T17:47:03Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Yes Do you have a legitimate cite for that statement of fact? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/79 "2015-03-03T18:57:56Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > For the most part, Wikipedia is a terrific starting point for, well pretty much anything. I also enjoy the regular updates and the “this day in history” section. > > Purely anecdotal, but I was banned from editing the Elvis Presley section because of a compulsive editor whose raisin d’être appears to be “proving” that every celebrity is gay. Used the same user name as I do here. It was a very unpleasant experience so I rarely edit anything anymore. I imagine that would be unpleasant, and you have my sympathies if you were just doing useful edits in good faith. But I’m curious about what those edits were (I went back to about 2011 in the edit history and couldn’t find them). There is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests or even hints that Elvis was gay. His marriage to Priscilla and many of the women he had affairs with are mentioned. At most, one might infer from the short “sex symbol” section that his image had bisexual appeal which, given the citations, is probably true and is not at all the same thing. I’m in no position to defend Wikipedia and have no special interest in doing so – and as I mentioned upthread, an editor there managed to piss me off, too. But that was only because they were being overly cautious and conservative about edits. Which is rather the opposite of being unreliable “because anyone can edit it”. I sense that a good deal of the criticism being directed against WP is either based on isolated incidents or just over the top hyperbole. If this is not the case, specific concrete examples to the contrary seem oddly lacking. ---
**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 3, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765/80 "2015-03-03T19:43:54Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Do you have a legitimate cite for that statement of fact? In a perfectly ironic sense, not according to Wikipedia. There is the author himself spilling the secret, which you can wacth on video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_5joGrA0HTA&t=536](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5joGrA0HTA&t=536) (that should start right before the secret is revealed, saving you much time) And of course, it’s on Wikipedia, in the talk pages, and history of several articles. But none of that can be considered a source for use on Wikipedia. The edits that so amused the author are still there in the history, but the current articles (as I type this), do not tell what actually happened. Hence it’s a perfect example of how WP can be horrible. A very interesting story, and facts, about a popular work, do not appear on Wikipedia. The short version is that he created a third Goddess, made her up, and it ended up being in the Wikipedia article, as if it was real historic Goddess from Polish mythology. The Wikipedia article was the original source of the 2008 book that stated it as fact, and when the author saw what happened,the Wikipedia article was defended against any change, based on the book cited, that originally got the info from Wikipedia. A recursive mess that even the source couldn’t fix, since the actual author of the book isn’t considered a valid source about a book. [Here’s the money shot](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zorya&diff=376108097&oldid=375327916), where the Wikipedia article is edited to claim that the author, who created the Midnight sister, used the historical three sisters in his work. How ironic. he made up a God, then Wikipedia ended up claiming the made up God was actually a historic God from Polish literature. Priceless. Just watch the videos. It’s hilarious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-horrible-is-wikipedia-really-concrete-examples-please/713765.md?page=5)