Actually, frequently you do. The editors of every article are listed on its history page, with links to their user pages. User pages often contain biographical information about the editor, describing their competencies and experience. Not all users do this, but many do.
No, you don’t. Publishing houses, university presses, and universities (along with the professors doing the writing), all have a vested interest in getting the information right. Anonymous people with self-proclaimed credentials and competencies are neither authoritative or reliable.
For the millionth time, Wikipedia is a tool like any other. Good for some things, not good for others. It’s good for quick and dirty information when the quality level of the information isn’t all that important. In fact, it’s great for quick and dirty information. Like any source, you can never have perfect certainty in the validity of the information. However, you can take major steps to slide the percentages in your favor. Wikipedia is not a high percentage source.
Just based on my use of wikipedia I’d have to disagree. Wikipedia is overwhelmingly correct on most “encyclopedia” fact type items. Articles involving controversial personalities or historical events may obviously be open to various opinions, but statement for statement I’d give wikipedia the nod over the opnions of most journalists, news editors, televsion reporters, television documentaries, and school textbooks.
Many “university” presses, and even more publishing houses, are vanity presses that will publish anything without any review at all. They don’t care if it’s right; all they care about is whether or not the publication is paid for. A lot of the books that you seem to think are reliable are in fact vanity publications that have not been reviewed and are no more reliable than graffiti on the subway. And yet you think these are more reliable than Wikipedia, which at least has people reviewing content (whether you believe it or not).
Assuming the user is a registered user. It’s possible to edit Wikipedia without being signed in. I guess I just don’t understand the point of letting everybody edit it, even those people who aren’t qualified to do so.
Why the quotes around university? I defy you to tell me that presses such as, say Princeton, Indiana University, Cambridge, and University of California are vanity presses that publish insubstatial, largely low quality information. Further, university presses are most certainly NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY. In fact, nearly all university presses are in financial trouble these days because of the resources they sink into producing high quality information. It’s evident that you know nothing at all about scholarly publishing.
Almost all for-profit publishers such as Palgrave, Praeger, and Blackwell are nearly beyond reproach when it comes to publishing reliable, high quality information. It’s disingenuous for you to make the statement that you made. The vast majority of publishers are NOT vanity presses. You’re slinging crap just to make your argument look better.
As far as graffiti goes, look to your own house first. Wikipedia is nothing but editable graffiti. The web page is a blank wall and you put something up on it and others write on it too, while sometimes
I never said that wikipedia didn’t have people reviewing their entries! I just said that I’d rather read things that were written by respected people in their fields and reviewed by trained editors rather than by people who go by monikers like “BoyzDrool.” What I did say is that it’s a fine tool for limited purposes. You appear to think that Wiki is that it is the single greatest innovation ever. You’re entitled to that opinion. However, I think it’s shameful for you to denigrate excellent organizations that do lots of hard work to create and distribute high quality information just to further your pet project.
You’ll have to be more specific. It’s not true that editors “send a warning to the individual who made the changes,” and it’s certainly not true that “Wikipedia is reliable.”
I just went and looked at Wikipedia right now and noticed some errors in the hentai entry. They are common enough errors that I didn’t bother correcting them. Then I clicked on one of the off links and noticed a glaring error I couldn’t ignore. Despite having many friends who work for Wikipedia, I don’t trust it as a source. I know many people who don’t realize how easily edited Wikipedia is which has caused a bit of trouble. They should put a disclaimer on it due to all the idiots of the world.
Wikipedia and by extension the internet is important because it removes many of the barriers to contributing to and accessing knowledge. I just hope that it always remains free and open as it is, and I will continue to contribute as much as I can by volunteering.
This may already be posted elsewhere on the SDMB, but it seems fitting to mention in this thread: Wikipedia is now requiring users to register before creating an article.
Only on the English Wikipedia. The ability of unregistered users to create new content is not restricted on any of the other language editions, on Meta, or on Commons (although you have to be a registered user to upload media, which is the main purpose for Commons to exist anyway).
We’re also talking about having “Wikiholidays” from time to time in which all anonymous editing will be disabled; the purpose of these holidays is to give our committed editors a chance to spend some time cleaning up existing content without having to deal with the flood of crap that we get from the unregistered users.
Interestingly enough, the account creation rate has more than doubled since we made the change discussed above, from roughly 2500 new accounts a day to nearly 7000 new accounts per day. For reference purposes: 50,000 new accounts have been created since November 19th; 10,000 since December 3rd. (These numbers are a few hours old and are not statistically valid.)
How do you restrict users that aren’t logged in?
We block the IP address.
I just removed the false claim from the article on word order typology that Sardinian is an OSV language. The article on Sardinian itself - well, it’s something else.
Part of the problem with the idea of users editing things is that very few people have the specialized knowledge required to do the work. I can tell that much of the article on Sardinian is at very least wrong-headed and deceptive; that doesn’t mean I have the specific knowledge to rewrite it. Were I not relatively well-informed in the area, I wouldn’t even recognize the places where it’s wrong.
A tech question I’ve often wondered about: If Joe and I are NATed 10.1.1.1 and 10.1.1.2 from 1.2.3.4, you’d block 1.2.3.4 and I’m blocked, too because Joe is an idiot, right? 
I’m sorry, Mr. Siegenthaler. You simply can’t be libeled because it’s obvious you’re a member of the old media and don’t understand that in the new paradigm anyone can say anything about you with no accountability.
You’ll just have to make your own website and then everyone will be back on a level playing field.
Yup. If you share an IP with someone else and they get blocked, you’re blocked too. This is true even if you, or he, has an account, because whenever a blocked user attempts to edit, whatever IP he’s using is autoblocked for a short time (to prevent him from just logging out and making the same edit anonymously).
This is really, seriously, overstating what I said.
I never said he couldn’t be libeled, I said that he didn’t take the most immediate action to correct said libel, which is to correct it on Wikipedia itself (not by setting up some other site). I don’t fault him for this necessarily, this whole thing kind of sprung itself on him and he had to figure it out. But it’s a sign of the divergence in attitudes that’s occuring over speech and the media, and it’s going to get worse.
The real argument in this issue is, how responsible are ISP’s and other service providers for their content? And I haven’t really commented on what I think of that. Honestly, I’m sympathetic to both sides, I just think these articles reflect a one-sided argument and responded to that.
And by the way, this little quote edit you made:
is really uncalled for. Snipping out the intervening bit about Cuomo to make it look like I was saying that about Seigenthaler is really pretty low. Thanks for that.
CapnPitt has already addressed this, but i just want to reiterate how misinformed this post is.
Anyway, for most stuff in my areas of interest - American history, and particularly intellectual history and political culture - i have found Wikipedia to be quite accurate and useful. And often, in cases where i disagree with something, it is a matter of interpretation about which reasonable and knowledgeable people can disagree without doing any injusice to the most important issues.
Sure there are potential problems with any system that allows virtualy unrestricted editing by anyone with access to the internet, but for the most part i think Wikipedia is a worthwhile project. For those who believe that it is fundamentally flawed and therefore useless, i guess you can just stick with the other few billion pages on the internet or - radical as this might seem - open a book.
This story has been updated and now comes with a confession and an apology.