From what I’ve heard, anyone can make an entry to Wikipedia. Is it really a do-it-yourself encyclopedia? If so, how can anyone trust what’s in there? What’s to keep pranksters from sticking in stuff about improbability drives and muffler bearings?
The principle behind wiki projects is that they’re self-correcting…for every person who will troll about non-existent or idiotic subjects, there’s ten people who will step in and change it to something more appropriate.
However, this entry does exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improbability_drive
Anyone can edit or start a new article there, so I certainly wouldn’t use it as a formal academic cite. I also wouldn’t depend on it for anything too critical like medical advice, or even repairing an appliance or something. I see it used often to “cite” things here, and generally an article that has been edited and reviewed by regular users is probably accurate enough for everyday trivia. It is fascinating, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny at all.
Most obvious pranksters or “vandals” are dealt with pretty quickly, but sometimes the articles are simply inaccurate.
I don’t think it’s wildly wrong or anything but I have seen mistakes and inaccuracies as well as articles which show political, religious or philosophical bias. I wouldn’t trust it as an academic source but it’s not too bad as just a quick online source to look at something you’re curious about.
It’s not a peer reviewed source in the traditional sense. As noted, anybody can post anything there. It is subject to quasi-peer review in the sense that if a Holocaust denier posts an article taking that view, that article will be taken to task pretty quickly.
But articles that attract less attention can exist there for some time with inaccurate information. I read one tonight where information was posted that is at odds with my state’s Parks and Wildlife department’s version of our state’s history. I suspect the Wikipedia entry is incorrect.
I tend to view it as a compendium of widely accepted common wisdom on a subject, rarely the object of a rigorous review.
My own paraphrase of Diogenes’ summation is that it can be good for a lead or two when you’re researching something, but it’s hardly a definitive source.
I have wondered this myself and even thought to ask it. I am always more than a little suspicious when someone uses it as proof of their position…
I with Diogenes on this one, I wouldn’t trust it as an academic source but it’s not too bad as just a quick online source to look at something you’re curious about.
If someone has a question about a certain bias in an article, they can post an NPOV (Neutral Point of View) objection to it. A discussion then ensues to determine whether the alleged bias can be worked through.
It can be fairly stated that Wikipedia is objective in that respect, and I tend to think it’s pretty accurate since the article is critiqued and refined as time goes on. Of course, they do have problems with what they call “vandals”, but they always save the last few revisions of all articles, so it’s an easy fix. I trust it, anyway.
It has more extensive information on most subjects than any other encyclopedia-type, general purpose source I know of. And, as we’ve all noticed by now, the fact that it’s published by a reputable source does not mean a piece of information is accurate. Yeah, I don’t treat it as gospel, but I wouldn’t treat the Encyclopedia Brittanica as gospel either. Let alone any of the more substandard ones out there. I trust Wikipedia, most of the time.
I am a big fan of Wiki. It lets me post about my own passions, Freemasonry and operational codewords. If anyone messes with those areas, I am on it like ugly on an ape.
Most of the 'pedia is quite reliable. The trouble is the obscure stuff, thing that nobody can correct is simply unknowable.
The great virtue is the diversity of the articles. For example it has the best (and the only serious) list on the internet of Notable Drug-Related Deaths. Nobody else has bothered to create such a thing.