# Is Wikipedia all that bad as a reference source? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862 "2011-02-18T22:59:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862/101 "2011-02-21T20:29:08Z")
Ibn Warraq, OK. I have given my sources and I think they are pretty credible for reasons I have gone into at some length. If you can find any evidence for your position other than the Max Boot opinion piece, I hope you will post it. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862/102 "2011-02-21T20:30:41Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Mate, scroll up you can see I specifically **deny** any knowledge and was depending on Ibn Warraq who is normally meticulous. Your cite shows his position as problematic. > > I nevertheless stand by my judgement re Wikipedia as a shaky source, fun to use for GD and the like but not to be relied on for any proper citation work. Thank you for the compliment. Also, as noted, his cite is an article by a grad student who’s thesis is on the effects of globalization and who describes himself as a “scholar-activist” who wants to use his research to fight for “social justice”. I’m not sure if his comment is proof that many historians on the conflict think that as many as a million civilians died of cholera. That said, I’m more than happy to concede that perhaps wikipedia’s page on the Philippine-American War is not quite so awful, but, as you say it certainly doesn’t prove that wikipedia is a reliable source to use for controversial subjects. What it can do is give you a broad overview, though I wouldn’t take anything it says for granted without verification and it can point you in the direction of much better sources. Beyond that, a write once said every editor needed a built-in, shock-proof, shit-detector and I’d recommend the same for anyone reading a wiki article. If passages don’t have cites, I’d be very cautious about trusting them. One is better off checking the footnotes and sources for the article to ensure the authenticity and keeping your shit-detector on full alert because quite a lot of wiki articles have shitty cites or often when you check on the actual cite it says something completely different. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862/103 "2011-02-21T20:42:15Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Ibn Warraq, > OK. I have given my sources and I think they are pretty credible for reasons I have gone into at some length. If you can find any evidence for your position other than the Max Boot opinion piece, I hope you will post it. You think Marco Hewitt is “pretty credible” even though you’d never heard of him until a few hours ago? Look, I’ll freely admit, that at the very least, he was doctoral candidate who has some specialized knowledge on the Philippines and it’s very possible that my belief that the overwhelming historical consensus regarding the conflict was that around 200,000 Filipino civilians died during the conflict though I’d want more than simply one comment by a “scholar-activist” that some estimates put the death toll as being as high as one million, particularly since Hewitt doesn’t even offer his opinion to credibility of those estimates. It’s quite possible that he thinks that the most likely number is more like 200,000 or 300,000. I think if everyone’s honest, we certainly don’t have enough information to be sure. I certainly feel I don’t. That said, I’m tired of this argument and happy to acknowledge that I may have been wrong about the quality of the page on the Philippine-American War. That still doesn’t change the fact that wikipedia is an extremely unreliable source when it comes to any controversial subject. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862/104 "2011-02-21T20:59:41Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > That being said, I’m going to recommend we drop this discussion of the Philippine-American War, or, if you wish to continue, to take it to the pit because it distracts from the larger question of the reliability of wikipedia. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I don’t feel like it’s worth continuing to argue about it and it distracts from the discussion we’re having regarding wikipedia. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Anyway, if you want to continue this fight, for the very last time, take it to the pit because it’s not fair to the people who are here to discuss wikipedia. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Finally, this is distracting from the discussion of wikipedia, so once more, if you want to further argue about the Philippine-American War or argue over the credibility of a man you’d never heard of prior to yesterday who you mistakenly thought was a professional historian(granted, by now he may be) then I recommend taking it to the pit. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Finally, for the very last time, since we’ve gotten way off-topic, if you want to continue to make such arguments then take it to the pit, because this thread is supposed to be about the reliability of wikipedia, not the Philippine-American War. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Now, finally, I’m done arguing about the Philippine-American War. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > That said, I’m tired of this argument and happy to acknowledge that I may have been wrong about the quality of the page on the Philippine-American War. You’re sending the eensiest bit of a mixed message, **Ibn Warraq** :). I actually think this discussion is germane, because it’s one of the three strongest examples offered so far of the significant inaccuracies in Wikipedia. If it appears that there’s disagreement in prominent military histories of the war, then I think this example of Wikipedia’s inaccuracy falls apart, especially since Wikipedia offers this number simply as a referenced claim, not as an outright truth. Of the other two strong examples offered so far–hemp’s need for herbicides, and the Armenian genocide–the former is also on pretty shaky ground. IMO the inaccuracy is with **Blake** , not with Wikipedia, in this case, and it shows more the danger of relying on some random schmoe on SDMB than on relying on Wikipedia. The Armenian genocide stands as an important inaccuracy, but maybe we should delve into that article to the same depth we’ve gone into this one? ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862/105 "2011-02-21T21:02:41Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You think Marco Hewitt is “pretty credible” even though you’d never heard of him until a few hours ago? I think the “The Encyclopedia of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars” is a credible source and possibly just possibly, its editor, an experienced historian, is a better judge of Marco Hewitt’s credibility than you are. Of course I may be wrong and you may in fact be the world’s leading authority on Marco Hewitt. In that case I admit it’s game over and you have won yet another stunning victory. Congratulations. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862/106 "2011-02-21T21:24:21Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I think if everyone’s honest, we certainly don’t have enough information to be sure. I certainly feel I don’t. Fair enough and I don’t think I have claimed that the 1 million number is necessarily true. I just don’t think it’s some crazy falsehood which discredits the Wikipedia page on the war. In general I agree that Wikipedia can be unreliable sometimes, though I think its critics exaggerate the problem particularly for high-profile articles. ---
**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:** [February 21, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862/107 "2011-02-21T22:00:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I actually think this discussion is germane, because it’s one of the three strongest examples offered so far of the significant inaccuracies in Wikipedia. If it appears that there’s disagreement in prominent military histories of the war, then I think this example of Wikipedia’s inaccuracy falls apart, especially since Wikipedia offers this number simply as a referenced claim, not as an outright truth. If one goes to the “Discussion” page for the Philippine-American War you can see that there is some debate over the 1.4M deaths figure (Warraq’s source Max Boot is cited). This, to me, is what puts Wiki ahead of any other reference; I don’t know of any general reference that allows that much scrutiny. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-all-that-bad-as-a-reference-source/571862.md?page=5)