I did a search on wikipedia and came up with this ????

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Eureka

Really, though, this kind of vandalism, while annoying, and embarrassing, isn’t the biggest credibility problem that Wikipedia has. The biggest problem is that if you read an article that looks good and seems reasonable-- you still can’t tell if it is reliable or not. Subtle errors or bias are much harder to detect than the kind of vandalism which inspired this thread–but they cab be just as deadly to YOUR credibility if you try to use Wikipedia as your only source of information.

Anyone would point out that the most common criticisms of Wikipedia also apply to print. A print publication… once published, it’s difficult to correct or improve, but it’s also hard to fuck it up.

Of course, primary sources, traditional print encyclopedias, journals and other resources may also have subtle errors or bias, although they are less likely to have this sort of embarrassing content. So this kind of thing should not stop you from consulting Wikipedia-- just be cautious about citing it–the perfectly respectable and authoritative seeming article may change to somthing ludicris, and you will not recieve any warning.

If you’re using Wikipedia as a cite, the least you can do to protect yourself is link to the specific version. You can do that by looking through the history; specific versions aren’t edited. Either they exist or they don’t.

[John_Mace]

I think Wiki is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are two things to help avoid being snookered by errors, though:

1. Never trust a page that seems like it was writen by a 5th grader. Good writing isn’t an indication of accuracy, but poor writing is often a sign of sloppiness with facts.

2. Follow the links at the end of the article. Sometimes just looking at the source of the external links tells you a lot. For instance, if it links to credible sources, that’s a good sign. If it links to somebody’s blog, beware! I once tracked down a page that someone used to answer a GQ thread, and it looked very fishy. I checked the links at the end and found that every one of them (there were about 4) could be traced back to only one obvioulsy phony article on a very shady looking web site.

If you read it with a questioning eye, you can learn a lot. After awhile, it gets easier and easier to spot the errors. By and large, though, it’s a tremendous resource.

[SpaceDog]

@John Mace

2. Follow the links at the end of the article. Sometimes just looking at the source of the external links tells you a lot. For instance, if it links to credible sources, that’s a good sign. If it links to somebody’s blog, beware! I once tracked down a page that someone used to answer a GQ thread, and it looked very fishy. I checked the links at the end and found that every one of them (there were about 4) could be traced back to only one obvioulsy phony article on a very shady looking web site.

Of course that’s good advice for any article of this sort. Sure, some places are less biased than others, but many still have a distinct slant at best or an agenda to push at worst.

The strength of Wikipedia is also it’s weakness. Anyone can ruin a page, but then anyone can fix it. It does mean that you never quite know what you’ll get on a given day, but it’s part of the charm of the site.

But used properly it’s a great resource, and it does teach you not to blindly accept what you read, it just provides a starting point.

YMMV, of course.

SD

[Happy_Clam]

In my experience, Wikipedia is a great journey but a lousy destination. When I want to find out about something quickly, I Wiki it. Then I follow the links at the bottom of the page and look up any book or article sources it cites (if possible). Finally, if motivated enough, I might try to track down stuff written by someone it cites as an authority. But I’d never use an info. straight from Wikipedia in a dissertation or similar.

[Malacandra]

Mr 65.138.68.199 has some issues, doesn’t he?