# The Case Against Wikipedia **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2009, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930 "2009-08-19T06:31:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/21 "2009-08-19T12:11:38Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > I’d like to read that thesis. I have to write it first. 😉 > [@](#): > > I agree that it has gotten so bad, I don’t bother reading a newspaper front-to-back any more. And I haven’t watched a TV ‘news program’ in probably 5 years, other than checking stock prices or sports scores on a ticker scrolling at the bottom of the page. > > Other than the Economist and the Financial Times, and some portions of the WSJ/Barrons, there isn’t a MSM news source that doesn’t make me cringe within 5 minutes of watching some talking head or skimming. > > The NYTimes has gotten so bad it’s become a parody of itself, with front page editorials masking as ‘news’. And yet it wonders aloud why it’s swirling the drain. The problem does seem worse in the US than elsewhere- the BBC Online are pretty good, and whilst Australia’s ABC Online news sometimes seems to lack polish, it’s still a lot better than the “Infotainment” coming out of the US. Unfortunately, a lot of the US media trends seem to be filtering over here, which is especially concerning because it’s been pretty well established they don’t work… ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/22 "2009-08-19T12:19:04Z")
As I’ve said before, on any scientific/medical topic that entails controversy, Wikipedia is untrustworthy because of the factions that believe that he who edits last, gets the final say. I’ve seen editors with crystalline clear, glaring conflicts of interest post tripe for eons until maybe some sanity re-enters the process. > [@Mosier](#): > > I’d go as far as to say that Wikipedia is the single most important legacy this generation will leave behind, in terms of the advancement of mankind. This is the most depressing thing I’ve read in a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/23 "2009-08-19T12:35:34Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I think one actual problem with wikipedia is that it may generate a sort of self-referentiality – let’s say somebody writes an article on some topic, and somebody else writes something else (external to wiki) using that article as reference (perhaps without appropriately citing it, as does happen quite often). Then, a third person realizes that the wiki article is in need of sourcing, does a google on the subject, comes across the article written by the second person which seems to corroborate wiki’s information, adds it as a citation, and what we get is a perfectly well-cited wiki article that need not have any basis in fact at all. Again - and this is bad compared to what? There is an enormous amount of this that has always gone on and will continue to go on, and it can’t be blamed on wikipedia. Its called dogma and traditional knowledge, and the world is rife with it. If you want to get past it you have to go back to deeper sources. This was true 20 years ago and it’s true now with wikipedia. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > As I’ve said before, on any scientific/medical topic that entails controversy, Wikipedia is untrustworthy because of the factions that believe that he who edits last, gets the final say. I’ve seen editors with crystalline clear, glaring conflicts of interest post tripe for eons until maybe some sanity re-enters the process. And there are numerous books espousing completely biased crap on controversial topics. They don’t have direct links showing other points of view that have been edited out of the front page, of course, so they are much worse. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/24 "2009-08-19T12:45:05Z")
Just to clarify the Debate a little here: is anyone arguing that Wikipedia provides a _net detriment_ - that it obscures _more_ than it illuminates - or are we merely lamenting that this vast, **free** resource isn’t as good as smaller commercial ones? I personally read very few “controversial” wikis, and am savvy enough with online resources (look where _this_ message is posted, for crissake) to know when something might well be fishy. I would guess that for every one time I have been misled by Wikipedia there will be over a thousand times I’ve been enlightened. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/25 "2009-08-19T13:08:09Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Wikipedia is the single most significant development to come from the internet. That’s wildly overstating things, isn’t it? Seems to me that hypertext and search engines are the most significant developments - indeed, Wikipedia would be useless without both of these. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/26 "2009-08-19T13:24:22Z")
Regarding the Maurice Jarre incident, that’s not illustrative of something particularly wrong with Wikipedia. Rather, it illustrates what happens when someone misuses it (anyone can misuse anything, so misuse is not a particular Wikipedan problem), and it illustrates a problem with Journalistic practices. Similar responses apply to all of your points. The problem isn’t with Wikipedia, it’s with the way some people misuse it. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/27 "2009-08-19T13:26:35Z")
And the way some people misuse it is by treating it as a serious and reliable reference text. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/28 "2009-08-19T14:19:24Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Again - and this is bad compared to what? There is an enormous amount of this that has always gone on and will continue to go on, and it can’t be blamed on wikipedia. Its called dogma and traditional knowledge, and the world is rife with it. If you want to get past it you have to go back to deeper sources. This was true 20 years ago and it’s true now with wikipedia. Err, did you read my post? I don’t think I could be any more pro wikipedia; however, the format has flaws which ought to be acknowledged. That people have always gotten things wrong is no excuse – of course they did, and they will in the future; however, to just throw your hands in the air on that realisation is nothing but defeatism. The wiki architecture, great as it is, encourages the kind of self-referential error I mentioned due to its dynamic content; something of fixed content is far less susceptible to the same problem. We can try and make sure to minimize the amount of things gotten wrong – for instance, one could request cites to predate the original (wiki) article, which would eliminate the problem (though it would probably generate others). ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/29 "2009-08-19T14:25:40Z")
It’s not a serious and reliable reference text. But again, compared to what? Would we be better off if the wikipedia servers were burned to the ground and the pieces buried in unconsecrated ground? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/30 "2009-08-19T14:48:45Z")
> [@Bisected8](#): > > **Popular culture inevitably has more detailed articles** > Because more people (and thus editors) know more about popular culture subjects, more effort (as the result of more manpower) is applied to popular culture related articles. On the flipside as the old adage goes “too many cooks spoil the broth”, having more editors can make the articles untidy and liable to change (as well as compromising the “neutrality” of an article when fans of a given work inevitably fawn over it). On the other hand, scientific articles tend to be edited by more academic types, and are often higher in quality despite being lower in content. Much of the “deletionist” mentality arises from resentment that “fluff” gets more development than Big Important Stuff. It’s reminiscent of the old joke that the difference between Americans and Russians is that if an American farmer’s neighbor has two cows when he has one, he’ll work harder to acquire another, while a Russian farmer in the same situation will respond by killing one of his neighbor’s cows. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/31 "2009-08-19T14:49:16Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > That’s wildly overstating things, isn’t it? > > Seems to me that hypertext and search engines are the most significant developments - indeed, Wikipedia would be useless without both of these. We can play this game forever, going all the way back to the discovery of electricity or the discovery of the number 0 if you like. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/32 "2009-08-19T14:55:59Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But again, compared to what? Reliable reference texts? 😛 Are you asking for specific reference texts that are quality texts, or simply asking if Wikipedia would cleave to the standard of a serious, reliable reference text even if every one we actually had was written by random monkeys on crystal meth? > [@Lemur866](#): > > Would we be better off if the wikipedia servers were burned to the ground and the pieces buried in unconsecrated ground? Yes, and then we should salt the earth and prohibit anybody from approaching the site for 10,000 years. Come on Lemur, you didn’t really mean to just set up a silly strawman and then do battle with it in order to rebut a point I never made… right? Wikipedia is a decent enough spot to check out for an overview of opinions on certain topics, and if you’re lucky all the points in an article will be cited. If you’re really lucky they’ll be good cites and the people who cited them will describe them accurately. But that doesn’t change the fact that the proper way to use Wikipedia on most subjects is to get an overview of what the contributors have stated, and then go track down the cites they based their claims on. That’s my point. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/33 "2009-08-19T15:15:10Z")
> [@Bisected8](#): > > **Anyone can correct it.** > In theory the easier it is for someone to edit, the easier it is for someone to correct. As a result, and assuming those who are motivated to vandalise wikis are in a minority, any deliberate errors would be picked up on by a more legitimate user and removed or corrected. This would be proportionate to the amount of traffic a given article receives; a more heavily frequented article should be subject to more vandalism but have it cleared up more quickly. In my personal experience, obvious errors have gotten removed quickly. There have been many, many times where I’ve seen errors and went to correct it, but before I submitted the change I refreshed the page and the error was gone! ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/34 "2009-08-19T16:09:47Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > …I _love_ Wikipedia, for all its faults, because you can do [this](http://xkcd.com/214/) **for free**. Seconded; Wiki is a browser’s dream and a great way to waste time while learning a thing or two or twelve. I’ve written and edited a bit on Wiki over the years, and it’s the rare day online that I don’t go there at least once, but I don’t pretend that it’s the _Encyclopedia Britannica_. I would never cite a Wiki article as an authoritative, argument-ending source of The Truth. But for pop culture, entertainment and/or to get a quick overview of something I didn’t know before, there’s nothing better. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/35 "2009-08-19T16:12:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Come on Lemur, you didn’t really mean to just set up a silly strawman and then do battle with it in order to rebut a point I never made… right? I mean, compared to other free online encyclopedias. Encyclopedias in general aren’t authoritative. They are surveys of the conventional wisdom. I shudder to think of the errors and biases of the 1976 World Book Encyclopedia I used to read when I was a kid. Wikipedia is not an authoritative collection of all human knowledge. It’s a free online encyclopedia. As a plain encyclopedia it is damn good and the fact that we can even debate whether it can be compared in quality to the Encyclopedia Britannica says that it’s damn good. Add in that it’s free, and available online (I can read a paper copy of several encyclopedias for free at my local library, but I’d have to go to the library), it’s updated frequently, it has articles on topics that traditional encyclopedias wouldn’t touch. Wikipedia is awesome, as long as you realize that it isn’t a repository of authoritative truth, but a collection of articles written by some random guys. You know, just like books and newspapers and magazines and textbooks and science journals and, well, everything. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/36 "2009-08-19T16:36:24Z")
Well, there is always **Conservapedia**. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main\_Page](http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/37 "2009-08-19T16:37:59Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Seconded; Wiki is a browser’s dream and a great way to waste time while learning a thing or two or twelve. I’ve written and edited a bit on Wiki over the years, and it’s the rare day online that I don’t go there at least once, but I don’t pretend that it’s the _Encyclopedia Britannica_. I would never cite a Wiki article as an authoritative, argument-ending source of The Truth. But then again, there’s no such thing anyway – Britannica can be wrong, too; so can articles in peer-reviewed journals, or anything else. I fully agree with those that say that it’s good as a jumping off point to start digging deeper into any given topic; but so’s every other reference text. It’s not a _weakness_ of wikipedia, but follows from the fact that we have no ultimate and perfect arbiter of truth. That it works as such a jumping off point, and frequently as good as its competitors, is a testament to its quality. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/38 "2009-08-19T17:04:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > **Wikipedia is badly written, badly organized, and inconsistent.** You run into problems when you try to say “Wikipedia is” _anything_. Wikipedia is a vast collection of articles, which vary widely in accuracy, writing style, level, correctness, and completeness. > [@](#): > > **Wikipedia encourages intellectual laziness.** Again, this flaw results naturally from the setup. By having a page about virtually anything and by being easy to navigate, Wikipedia is a natural choice for anyone who wants to find information quickly, especially for anyone who has low standards for intellectual content. Thus it leads people away from more rigorous content. Even worse, it leads people away from source material. Why bother reading _The Winter’s Tale_ when you can just read the synopsis on Wikipedia? So, if it’s accessible and easy to use, that’s bad? Hell, no! When you make something easier to use, you make it easier to misuse, but that’s not a flaw in the thing that’s easy to use. > [@](#): > > Defenders will say that Wikipedia should only be the starting point for research on any topic. It’s a defensible idea in theory, but anyone who works with students knows that they use Wikipedia as a substitute for research, not a starting point for it. So flunk those students. > [@](#): > > Lastly there’s the claim that Wikipedia advances intellectual life just by making information available. Unfortunately the articles are so dry, dull, and humorless that it’s difficult to imagine anyone discovering the wonders of intellectualism by reading them. There are some things that Wikipedia does that no one else does as well. There have been times when I’m reading the SDMB, for instance, and come across a reference to a person, or band, or TV show, or whatever that I’m totally unfamiliar with. How do I find out what that person is talking about? My first stop is often to look it up on Wikipedia. Sometimes it’s me who makes a post with a reference to a person, place, or thing that I suspect will be unfamiliar to a substantial number of people. To avoid confusion, I’ll often check the Wikipedia link, make sure it’s understandable and accurate, and link to it. Or if I want to explain something, _sometimes_ Wikipedia already has a really good explanation/description. If it meets my approval, I’ll link to it and/or quote from it rather than make something up myself. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/39 "2009-08-19T17:08:35Z")
> **[CNET: Product reviews, advice, how-tos and the latest news](https://www.cnet.com/)** > > Get full-length product reviews, the latest news, tech coverage, daily deals, and category deep dives from CNET experts worldwide. In fact, Wikipedia, on average, is not _much_ less accurate than the Britannica. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930/40 "2009-08-19T17:11:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > this article is worthless. Err, no its not, I had no idea who Abraham Maslow was I, now know he’s the guy behind the “Hierachy of Needs” (as it happens a theory I often quote). It was actually pretty useful to me, therefore IMHO the matter is settled, Wikipedia IS USEFUL. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-wikipedia/506930.md?page=3)