# There's just so much wrong with Wikipedia- and I don't mean the articles **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 15, 2005, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141 "2005-11-15T08:23:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Corii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Corii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corii)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/21 "2005-11-15T18:46:24Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Wikipedia is a useful tool for getting general information. I’d never rely on information from Wikipedia as much as I would from something like EB, though. I like Wikipedia, it’s interesting to browse and lots of the information I find there is a jumping off point for further research on things that interest me. Of course it’s wise to have multiple sources when searching for information to support your point of view. But if say, you just want to find out more about that vegetable you saw in the store called a Chinese cal-trop (_raises hand!_) it’s great. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/22 "2005-11-15T18:47:00Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > What percentage of the articles are accurate? My son relies on Wikipedia for research for school, and although I know it’s liable to editing by kooks and trolls, I haven’t seen any blatant errors or misinformation. Granted, I haven’t read all the articles, but the few I’ve read seem well-thought out and put together. Your son should be looking for at least 1 or 2 supporting cites. Occasionally the articles are not correct even for grade school level use. Wikipedia is probably the best first site check for most things at this point. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/23 "2005-11-15T20:50:23Z")
Anyone questioning Wikipedia should keep in mind that all reference works are suspect. There are plenty of errors in Encylopedia Britannica (even leaving aside the inevitable timeliness errors). And academics are no more immune to bias than anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![andrewdt85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/71e660/32.png) [@andrewdt85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewdt85)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/24 "2005-11-15T21:36:30Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > Ah, the bitch-and-moan-about-something-that-is-free type. I have pitted them more than once because I receive similar attacks about my site. Meh! > > So **KellyM** , you guys are doing a great job. Thanks a lot, Wiki is one of the very few sites I’ve felt compelled to make a donation to. It wasn’t so much a donation as a “this is a fucking cheap fee”. I’m not ‘bitching and moaning’ I’m offering CONSTRUCTIVE AND LOGICAL CRITICISM and was also started the OP, if you’d read it, to find out answers, which I did (thanks, guys). I can’t hit you, MG, b/c you’re app. female, so- to the moon, MG! I also LOVE WIKIPEDIA, I appreciate your comments KellyM, and I understand that hosting a vB on your site would be too much to handle. But what about a vB somewhere away from the site, all about Wiki? Again, I understand that they cost money and such. Also, I read on Wiki that some people have some kind of sites where they chat about Wiki? I should check those. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/25 "2005-11-15T22:03:45Z")
> [@andrewdt85](#): > > I’m not ‘bitching and moaning’ I’m offering CONSTRUCTIVE AND LOGICAL CRITICISM … Then why is this in the Pit? I mean, this _is_ the ‘bitching and moaning’ forum. If you were really intent on posting constructive criticism, why didn’t you start a thread titled “Some Ideas On Improving Wikipedia” over in IMHO? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/26 "2005-11-15T22:13:36Z")
**andrewdt85** Your OP did sound more like bitching and moaning then Constructive criticism. Try rereading it and you’ll see how the B&M could be seen. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/27 "2005-11-15T22:46:12Z")
> [@andrewdt85](#): > > I can’t hit you, MG, b/c you’re app. female, so- to the moon, MG! This does not even merit a response. So you are offering “constructive criticism”, eh? That must be why you used terms such as “a fucking joke”, “clunky”, “crappy”, and “archaic”. Yeah, that sounds pretty constructive to me. For the record, I think that you are a cretin. There, that’s **andrewdt85** -brand constructive criticism for you. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/28 "2005-11-15T22:59:55Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Wikipedia is a useful tool for getting general information. I’d never rely on information from Wikipedia as much as I would from something like EB, though. Stupid question: What is EB? ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/29 "2005-11-15T23:02:32Z")
Encylopedia Britannica ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/30 "2005-11-15T23:19:17Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Anyone questioning Wikipedia should keep in mind that all reference works are suspect. There are plenty of errors in Encylopedia Britannica (even leaving aside the inevitable timeliness errors). And academics are no more immune to bias than anyone else. Nothing is perfect but the Encyclopedia Britannica is light years ahead of Wiki when it comes to credibility. There’s a few reasons: 1. If it’s written in EB, then whoever wrote it has some level of expertise on the subject. If you’ve looked at EB online it gives background information on the authors that write the given articles, and while not all of them are Ph.D’s, all of them that I’ve looked at show clear qualifications to actually write on the subject. With Wikipedia, you get the handle of the person that wrote the article. You have no idea if this person is qualified, you can _hope_ that the Wiki community has vetted the article somewhat, but depending on the article that isn’t always the case. 1. If the article is in EB, you know that it’s been at least looked over by an editorial staff and that it’s supposed to be there (yeah, there may be typos and etc, nothing is perfect.) With Wiki the page you’re looking at could have recently been messed with by someone just trying to deface a Wiki, page this happens pretty often, especially on current events type entries. 2. If it’s in EB more people will accept it as a cite for various different purpose (although for any serious research ANY general research text isn’t going to be sufficient.) Wiki does have some advantages over EB: 1. Price, I shelled out quite a bit for my entire set of leatherbound Encyclopedia Britannica’s. 2. The much maligned search engine is probably faster than getting the book off the shelf, and flipping to the correct page. Especially if the topic you are looking for isn’t under the article title you would expect, then you have to use the index volume. 3. It’s more current. “Plamegate” doesn’t have an entry in EB. ---
**Author:** ![andrewdt85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/71e660/32.png) [@andrewdt85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewdt85)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/31 "2005-11-16T05:32:54Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Nothing is perfect but the Encyclopedia Britannica is light years ahead of Wiki when it comes to credibility. There’s a few reasons: > > 1. If it’s written in EB, then whoever wrote it has some level of expertise on the subject. If you’ve looked at EB online it gives background information on the authors that write the given articles, and while not all of them are Ph.D’s, all of them that I’ve looked at show clear qualifications to actually write on the subject. > > With Wikipedia, you get the handle of the person that wrote the article. You have no idea if this person is qualified, you can _hope_ that the Wiki community has vetted the article somewhat, but depending on the article that isn’t always the case. > > 1. If the article is in EB, you know that it’s been at least looked over by an editorial staff and that it’s supposed to be there (yeah, there may be typos and etc, nothing is perfect.) With Wiki the page you’re looking at could have recently been messed with by someone just trying to deface a Wiki, page this happens pretty often, especially on current events type entries. > > 2. If it’s in EB more people will accept it as a cite for various different purpose (although for any serious research ANY general research text isn’t going to be sufficient.) > > Wiki does have some advantages over EB: > > 1. Price, I shelled out quite a bit for my entire set of leatherbound Encyclopedia Britannica’s. > > 2. The much maligned search engine is probably faster than getting the book off the shelf, and flipping to the correct page. Especially if the topic you are looking for isn’t under the article title you would expect, then you have to use the index volume. > > 3. It’s more current. “Plamegate” doesn’t have an entry in EB. You’re absolutely right on all three accounts of course. I also am the proud owner of the EB :D. I paid 1,000 for mine, 2005 edition, new. You? Anyways, yeah, the anonymous and often spelling-challenged authors and questionable (sometimes wrong) facts that don’t get changed b/c they are in obscure articles are prices we must pay, I suppose, for being able to read an article on practicly everything in the universe. Okay, 😃 I’m exaggerating a _little_ bit, but Wikipedia has an article on 12.5 times as many subjects as the EB (compare 65 thousand to 822 thousand). I’m aware that some topics are not worth much, and some basic topics don’t have good or long articles, and many topics are still missing (check the page of requested topics; it’s HUGE), and added to our previous criticisms, that’s plenty of things to complain about. But I think that, instead of just insulting Wiki like many Dopers do, why not just spend more time on Wiki fixing the problems you see? That’s how it works, after all. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/32 "2005-11-16T05:38:18Z")
> [@andrewdt85](#): > > I also LOVE WIKIPEDIA, I appreciate your comments KellyM, and I understand that hosting a vB on your site would be too much to handle. Too much to handle? I think not. Wikipedia is at least 2 orders of magnitude larger than the largest vB site. It’s just not the right tool for the job. > [@andrewdt85](#): > > But what about a vB somewhere away from the site, all about Wiki? Why, when we have the Wiki? If you really want to get into metadiscussion about community, there the [Wikimedia Meta-Wiki](http://meta.wikimedia.org/), but that’s a pretty slow neighborhood, mainly used for community coordination across all projects. There are also IRC channels (hosted on [freenode.net](http://freenode.net)) and several mailing lists (none of which are likely worth reading for the casual editor). Frankly, a forum would just tend to distract from the project, which is to **write an encyclopedia**. Wikipedia isn’t intended to be a social gathering place. ---
**Author:** ![andrewdt85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/71e660/32.png) [@andrewdt85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andrewdt85)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/33 "2005-11-16T06:05:24Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > Too much to handle? I think not. Wikipedia is at least 2 orders of magnitude larger than the largest vB site. It’s just not the right tool for the job. > > Why, when we have the Wiki? If you really want to get into metadiscussion about community, there the [Wikimedia Meta-Wiki](http://meta.wikimedia.org/), but that’s a pretty slow neighborhood, mainly used for community coordination across all projects. There are also IRC channels (hosted on [freenode.net](http://freenode.net)) and several mailing lists (none of which are likely worth reading for the casual editor). Frankly, a forum would just tend to distract from the project, which is to **write an encyclopedia**. Wikipedia isn’t intended to be a social gathering place. True indeed. I guess the way I feel is, well… okay, this is kinda wierd, so brace yourself. Having been on the Dope for a while, I feel a sense of community here, even though we’re all just a bunch of people on computers many miles away from each other, typing and looking at screens (except Dopefests, or people who know each other). The reason is b/c of the layout of vB, which helps you feel surrounded by the users as you discuss in a thread and enter forums; at Wiki, you enter the individual forums to discuss something, but hardly anyone even discusses anything (although one person eventually responded- and helpfully!- to my recent posting), and so it’s just a page w/ messages on it- no sense of community. I guess a vB is about as community as a site can get w/o losing prose and intelligence (ie by using avatars and conversing in real time). But, as you and someone on there said, ‘at Wikipedia, we don’t talk about things, we write articles about them.’ 😃 I don’t need to feel community there, I love it for what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/34 "2005-11-16T09:23:50Z")
Well, I’m reasonably proud my plot summary for _Watchmen_ has been left (mostly) intact for about three weeks. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/35 "2005-11-16T14:54:40Z")
> [@andrewdt85](#): > > But, as you and someone on there said, ‘at Wikipedia, we don’t talk about things, we write articles about them.’ 😃 I don’t need to feel community there, I love it for what it is. I don’t think you meant anything ill by it and were just joking around, but you kinda-sorta need to work on your kidding around skills when conversing with obviously female posters. The “to the moon” joke is less funny and more creepy these days as the (whether intended or not) threat of giving someone a physical smack down. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/36 "2005-11-16T18:33:37Z")
> [@Khadaji](#): > > Stupid question: What is EB? Stupider question: Where did the “Wiki” part of Wikipedia originate? I don’t recognize that prefix. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/37 "2005-11-16T18:37:43Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > Stupider question: Where did the “Wiki” part of Wikipedia originate? I don’t recognize that prefix. > **[Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki)** > > A wiki (/ˈwɪki/ (listen) WIK-ee) is a hypertext publication collaboratively edited and managed by its own audience directly using a web browser. A typical wiki contains multiple pages for the subjects or scope of the project and could be either open to the public or limited to use within an organization for maintaining its internal knowledge base. > Wikis are enabled by wiki software, otherwise known as wiki engines. A wiki engine, being a form of a content management system, differs from other... ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/38 "2005-11-16T18:39:40Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) Thanks, I should have known they’d have an entry on themselves. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/39 "2005-11-16T18:40:25Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > Thanks, I should have known they’d have an entry on themselves. :smack: The name was based on the Hawaiian term wiki wiki, meaning “quick” or “informal.” It is used commonly in Hawaii as part of its rich “pidgin English”— the native language of the islands. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141/40 "2005-11-16T18:41:03Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > Stupider question: Where did the “Wiki” part of Wikipedia originate? I don’t recognize that prefix. From the [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) Wikipedia entry: > [@](#): > > Cunningham coined the term wiki after the “wiki wiki” or “quick” shuttle buses at Honolulu Airport. Wiki wiki was the first Hawaiian term he learned on his first visit to the islands, when the airport counter agent directed him to take the wiki wiki bus between terminals. According to Cunningham, “I chose wiki-wiki as an alliterative substitute for ‘quick’ and thereby avoided naming this stuff quick-web.” Wiki has also been backronym-ed as “What I Know Is”. Now wiki wiki down to your local tiki bar and get me a beer. 😃 Stranger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-just-so-much-wrong-with-wikipedia-and-i-dont-mean-the-articles/331141.md?page=3)