Not to mention the Straight Dope Message Board. 
The question is not whether Wikipedia is 100% accurate. It’s not, of course. The question is how accurate it is in comparison to other sources. I’d say it’s at least as accurate as most other encyclopedias. Do you think the Britannica editors are somehow immune to bias or error?
Of course no encyclopedia is perfectly accurate. However, I’ve found loads of laugable errors in Wikipedia, errors that a dilligent person in the field would easily detect. I can’t say the same about Britannica.
On their disclaimer website they mention that articles may be in inappropriately edited just before you view them. After the tragedy in South Asia, I looked up the article “Tsunami”. It looked basically like it does as of now, except that after the sentence ending, “…although they have not been aware of any wave in the open water.”, there was a horribly racist comment. I imagine that this happens all too often, which is one reason why the website must be closely monitored and edited.
You can’t even spell properly, so why should we take your criticisms of Wikipedia seriously?
Uh…you’re joking, right?
Usram, your comment, (leaving aside the logical fallacy it contains), is not appropriate to General Questions. If you intended humor, you did not present it in a way that was clearly facetious. If you were serious, you are out of line.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Josh, do you mean “loads” in a strictly quantitive sense or in a percentage sense? I’m sure Wikipedia has hundreds of errors; it has almost half a million articles after all. But in percentage numbers, what do you think is the percentage of articles that have a significant error?
You have to know a little about how it works. One can’t just go making random unjustified edits and expect them to stick. You have to be either an established member of the community, or accompany your edit with a reasonable explanation.
I experienced this firsthand when I attempted to correct one of the many, many, Wikipedia articles imported directly from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I made my correction anonymously and within 10 minutes it had been rolled back. I made the edit again, with the explanation of why I had made it. The maintainer of that “zone” apologized and said that he was just making sure it wasn’t a frivolous change.
The change was removing most of a description of the Japanese island of Hokkaido, filed under the archaic name “Ezo” with most of the information being 94 years old. It’s hardly debatable that practically everything in the article would have changed in the past 94 years, but I had to explain that before the maintainer would allow the change to stick.
So yeah, people are watching it. That was reassuring. The scary thing for me was finding out that Wikipedia is basically edits and revisions of the 1911 encyclopedia britannica, and much of it hasn’t yet been updated.
There were 2200 articles that came from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - the majority of which have been completely revised and updates since their original inclusion. There are over 455,000 articles in Wikipedia.
This thread has been really, really horribly full of stuff.
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica had around 40,000 articles. While the whole thing is online, most of it are poorly scanned OCRs which can’t be straightaway incorporated into Wikipedia. EG they have to be done one at a time. A quick sampling of some of the topics found in the 1911 Britannica tells us that no, not all of them are in Wikipedia.
That said, since when is < 10% “basically” anything?
But if he or she hadn’t “allowed it”, you’d be where I’m at.
If you’re right then there must be some way to prove that you’re right so why don’t you just prove it to them?
If there is no way to prove that you are right then how do you know you are right?
How does that prevent them from re-editing it, as they’ve done, despite a number of people correcting it?
This is gist of this criticism, a dedicated person(s) can keep a page aligned to their views by constant monitoring.
I’d imagine bias would manifest itself more often in this way, rather than inaccuracies, though.
Generally, I believe an administrator (or moderator or whatever) can suspend a user from making malicious changes. I’d say that continually editing an article to include an objective falsehood would be considered malicious.
I guess I don’t understand whether you were anonymously making edits without explanations, or submitting edits with justification under a user ID with a known history of credibility. Like here, there is a Wiki “community” where credibility is established (or undermined) by one’s history of contributions. Like here, occasional pecking orders and cliques arise, sometimes (in my opinion) to the prejudice of good documentation, but in general the community is a good thing. At any rate, anonymous users are rightfully at the bottom of the totem pole (how do you know if they’re credible?)
As far as the percentage of articles that are outdated 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entries… perhaps I chose incorrect wording in saying “basically.” I do not spend my days chronicling the fraction of Wikipedia that is correct or outdated, but clearly it is non-trivial. And I myself have encountered enough outdated articles to cause me to doubt anyone who says “most of them have been updated.” No doubt many of them have, but there’s unquestionably still a lot of dead wood out there.
I wish I could give you a good number. I’ve personally corrected or pointed out errors in 50-100 articles, mostly scientific articles. I can’t say how many I’ve looked at closely enough to find mistakes, and I have not looked at a random sample of articles, but I think that “hundreds of errors” is optimistic. A sampling of errors: the empirical formulas for hexane and heptane were wrong, it was said that the “extra” hydroxyl group in RNA (as compared to DNA) was the 3’ (it’s the 2’), incorrect codons were given for some amino acids, some base was said to pair with something it doesn’t pair with (A was said to pair with C, or something like that), the year of the Annapolis Convention was incorrect, the Maltese language was said to be a descendant of Phoenician (it’s an offshoot of Arabic with some other stuff mixed in). I’m not counting obvious vandalism or things that were merely incomplete or misleadingly worded.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Wikipedia is a great resource, as should be clear from the amount of time I’ve obviously spent there. But errors are too frequent.
We could do our own experiment. Wikipedia has a “random article” feature. We could use this to pick a bunch of articles randomly, post the links here, and see how many errors we can find.
OK, here’s theire article on champagne
I fixed part of a Wikipedia article on football once that said that in the pros a defensive pass interference penalty in the end zone was something like half the distance to the goal line, when the ball is actually placed on the one-yard line. Problem is, now I can’t find it to see if it stuck or was changed somehow.
I agree with others that if you’re looking for basic information–especially on popular culture articles–Wikipedia will be fine if you aren’t trying to use it as a source. Another one I’m familiar with is H2G2 (the online Hitchhiker’s Guide, now hosted by the BBC), which I knew about several years before Wikipedia.