# Wikipedia: Reliable And Easily Fixed, Or Always-Vandalized And Unreliable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479 "2008-09-13T20:26:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/21 "2008-09-14T15:55:52Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I think it’s one of the best websites on the internet. Almost all factual statements are cited (note to kids out there whose teachers won’t let them use Wikipedia: just cite what the author of the article cited! Click the little superscript numbers at the end of factual statements.) That might be part of the problem. Instructors may want students to learn how to look up information in other places besides Wikipedia. I had a college history course and one of the assignments was to analyze a particular article on the American Revolution and what role Wikipedia has in class research. The consensus was that this article was pretty good but it wasn’t something any of us would cite in a formal history paper. Typically I wouldn’t use any other encyclopedia as a cite either. Wikipedia becomes less and less useful the more focused your search for knowledge becomes. They have a decent article on European Witchcraft for example -which is a pretty good general overview of the phenomenon- but if I want specifics on Scotland, particular cases, etc., then I am better off looking elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/22 "2008-09-14T16:49:44Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > That might be part of the problem. Instructors may want students to learn how to look up information in other places besides Wikipedia. Well, err, . . . why? Most schools have Lexis Nexis, which is not even available to the general public, and they encourage students to use it. At least Wikipedia will be useful in the students’ everyday life. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/23 "2008-09-14T17:09:19Z")
Good, not good, it ain’t going away. It’s now a permanent fixture, and is solidifying its position with each passing hour. The world is going to have to learn how to deal with it. So maybe colleges should offer a mandatory incoming-freshman course (or better yet, high schools could have a mandatory course at, say, the junior level) in which students learn how to do research on line, with a couple of weeks specifically devoted to Wikipedia, or to wikis more generally. What are their strengths, what are their weaknesses, how do you defend yourself from potentially misleading information by seeking corroboration, what are the red flags for bias and/or mischief and/or disputed points, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/24 "2008-09-14T17:15:31Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Well, err, . . . why? Most schools have Lexis Nexis, which is not even available to the general public, and they encourage students to use it. At least Wikipedia will be useful in the students’ everyday life. As I originally posted: > [@](#): > > Wikipedia becomes less and less useful the more focused your search for knowledge becomes. In my experience students are not typically permitted to cite from any encyclopedia let alone Wikipedia. So far as certain upper level undergraduate courses go this is especially true as they may be expected to perform some “original” research. I’ve used Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias for research purposes though I’ve never cited them in a formal paper. I’m pro-Wikipedia but I do think it has limits. I don’t really care if Wikipedia is useful to them after college more than Lexus Nexus might be (though many public libraries have LN). Even if they’re not using LN when they graduate the skills the acquire while engaging in research more strenuous than just checking Wikipedia will serve them their whole lives. Let’s not forget other sources like ILLiad and WorldCAT where you might find journals and articles that aren’t in an electronic database. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/25 "2008-09-14T17:18:31Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > As I originally posted: That’s _your_ reason, and a perfectly valid one, but I really don’t think that’s what high school and lower-level college teachers are thinking. Upper level college teachers, probably yes. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/26 "2008-09-14T17:55:06Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Wikipedia becomes less and less useful the more focused your search for knowledge becomes. They have a decent article on European Witchcraft for example -which is a pretty good general overview of the phenomenon- but if I want specifics on Scotland, particular cases, etc., then I am better off looking elsewhere. If Wikipedia lacks the information and references that you have found in your research, maybe you could _add that information to Wikipedia_? Create an article called “Scottish Witchcraft” or “Witchcraft in Scotland” or create articles on Scottish Witches in literature. If you create a decent article with references, it will survive an Articles for Deletion debate. This is the only answer to any complaints about WP inaccuracy or omissions. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/27 "2008-09-14T18:04:28Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > That might be part of the problem. Instructors may want students to learn how to look up information in other places besides Wikipedia. I had a college history course and one of the assignments was to analyze a particular article on the American Revolution and what role Wikipedia has in class research. The consensus was that this article was pretty good but it wasn’t something any of us would cite in a formal history paper. Typically I wouldn’t use any other encyclopedia as a cite either. Not intending to sound like a broken record, but the class should have created a Wikipedia login and… Fixed the fucking article! Unlike Britannica, if you have better references, Wikipedia wants them. The only way Wikipedia gets better is if experts in a particular field correct and expand the information in their area of expertise. I’m an expert in some areas, and have added references. Heck, I’m a rank amateur in some areas, but if I find a useful reference for an article I read, I’ll add it and see if the genuine experts find it useful and worthy. Sorry, but looking down on Wikipedia from an ivory tower perspective is **not helpful**. If you have ever used it, I believe you have a moral obligation to pay it back by righting what is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/28 "2008-09-14T19:04:28Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Please elaborate; I have never heard this and I’ve written a hell of a lot of papers. My wife, who graduated college with honors (which basically just means you write more papers) has never heard this. I’m not sure what elaboration I can really give… I was taught that encyclopedia articles weren’t considered acceptable for college-level work because they, due to their brevity and target audience, tend to oversimplify issues and lack adequate details. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/29 "2008-09-14T19:11:29Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Wikipedia articles that deal with history and science tend range from excellent to very good. History articles can be problematic as well when they touch on issues of nationalism. My personal area of expertise is modern Japanese history and politics. It’s not uncommon for articles in those fields to turn into nasty edit wars between Korean, Chinese, and Japanese posters. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/30 "2008-09-14T19:16:54Z")
My rule for saving time on the internet is: when you want to learn more about something, Wikipedia should always be the first place you go, and should never be the last. Sometimes I forget about it and end up kicking myself for time that needn’t have been wasted. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/31 "2008-09-14T19:23:11Z")
> [@cckerberos](#): > > I’m not sure what elaboration I can really give… I was taught that encyclopedia articles weren’t considered acceptable for college-level work because they, due to their brevity and target audience, tend to oversimplify issues and lack adequate details. I asked my wife about this further and she said she would never use the encyclopedia for the reasons you list but never heard a professor explicitly forbid it. Come to think of it I don’t think I’ve ever used one either (except in grammar school, I’m sure), but I have used the method I mentioned above of citing what Wikipedia cites (basically going to Wikipedia as a jumping off point to find the same information they found.) I wouldn’t do it on a thesis or anything but run of the mill paper? Hell yes. It’s a huge time saver. ---
**Author:** ![A\_shameful\_cracka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@A\_shameful\_cracka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_shameful_cracka)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/32 "2008-09-14T20:10:51Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Not intending to sound like a broken record, but the class should have created a Wikipedia login and… > > Fixed the fucking article! > > Unlike Britannica, if you have better references, Wikipedia wants them. The only way Wikipedia gets better is if experts in a particular field correct and expand the information in their area of expertise. I’m an expert in some areas, and have added references. Heck, I’m a rank amateur in some areas, but if I find a useful reference for an article I read, I’ll add it and see if the genuine experts find it useful and worthy. > > Sorry, but looking down on Wikipedia from an ivory tower perspective is **not helpful**. If you have ever used it, I believe you have a moral obligation to pay it back by righting what is wrong. I’ve tried correcting errors in Wikipedia, and found myself embroiled in edit wars and temporarily banned because somebody who was opposed to any kinds of changes to an article repeatedly reverted it. Once I added a long list of guitar songs that were in non-standard tunings to an existing article after noticing that a lot of famous songs were not on it, and had it deleted because I did not have any cites. I linked to articles about these songs and transcriptions, and still had it reverted. Apparently there was someone who, for whatever reason, did not want that list added to and obsessively reverted any edits to it. The problem with trying to fix Wikipedia yourself is the die-hard wikipedians who will fight changes for arbitrary reasons or for no reason at all. I got sick of it and gave up. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/33 "2008-09-14T20:18:53Z")
> [@A\_shameful\_cracka](#): > > I’ve tried correcting errors in Wikipedia, and found myself embroiled in edit wars and temporarily banned because somebody who was opposed to any kinds of changes to an article repeatedly reverted it. Once I added a long list of guitar songs that were in non-standard tunings to an existing article after noticing that a lot of famous songs were not on it, and had it deleted because I did not have any cites. I linked to articles about these songs and transcriptions, and still had it reverted. Apparently there was someone who, for whatever reason, did not want that list added to and obsessively reverted any edits to it. > > The problem with trying to fix Wikipedia yourself is the die-hard wikipedians who will fight changes for arbitrary reasons or for no reason at all. I got sick of it and gave up. It’s conceivable that, as a style judgement, someone did not feel a list of songs in non-standard tunings would be relevant to that article. Quite possibly, I would agree; Wikipedia often suffers from list bloat in an off-putting way. But either way, from this description alone, I would not call this an _error_ in Wikipedia, in any factual sense. ---
**Author:** ![Jello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@Jello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jello)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/34 "2008-09-14T20:29:05Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Sorry, but looking down on Wikipedia from an ivory tower perspective is **not helpful**. If you have ever used it, I believe you have a moral obligation to pay it back by righting what is wrong. A couple of years ago I was in a history class where we did that. The professor set a project to read a book on a topic not covered well on Wikipedia, and our “paper” for that project was to create (or improve extensively) the Wikipedia page for it, using the conventions the site adheres to. The fun thing about Wikipedia use in college is listening to the students who think they’re fooling people by quoting directly from entries in class, as if they did extensive research beyond the print articles that were the day’s reading assignment. It’s especially amusing to make their next point for them, and watch the looks on their faces as they realize their ruse has been discovered. I fully agree with the people who’ve said it’s “the best Internet development of all time.” My friends make fun of me because I also contend that it’s better than sex, but I bet they’ll recognize the truth of that eventually. As for the criticisms of Wikipedia, yeah, I’ve accidentally repeated urban legends and other minor errors I’ve found perpetuated there, but those have decreased dramatically as time’s gone by - anyone who’s been reading it for years can testify to that - and reiterate that if I paid more attention to the sources cited I wouldn’t have done that. ---
**Author:** ![A\_shameful\_cracka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@A\_shameful\_cracka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_shameful_cracka)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/35 "2008-09-14T20:33:19Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > It’s conceivable that, as a style judgement, someone did not feel a list of songs in non-standard tunings would be relevant to that article. Quite possibly, I would agree; Wikipedia often suffers from list bloat in an off-putting way. But either way, from this description alone, I would not call this an _error_ in Wikipedia, in any factual sense. This was an existing article, with a list of maybe a half-dozen songs on it, most of which I had never heard of, several by the same artist. I added to the existing list and had it reverted repeatedly. I’ve run into this in a lot of articles…there are a lot of obsessive people on wikipedia, and many of them seem to take it as personal offense if you edit one of “their” articles. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/36 "2008-09-14T20:34:20Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Sorry, but looking down on Wikipedia from an ivory tower perspective is **not helpful**. If you have ever used it, I believe you have a moral obligation to pay it back by righting what is wrong. Dude, take a chill pill. I think my posts reflect a pro-Wikipedia attitude. Just because I’m not fellating Wikipedia every chance I get doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s a good resource. It’s just that it isn’t appropriate\* to cite Wikipedia on a paper written in college. I say the same about the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History, the Encyclopedia Britannica, or Encyclopedia Brown. I’m not really sure where you get the impression that I’m “looking down” at Wikipedia from an ivory tower perspective. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/37 "2008-09-14T21:13:51Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Also, I love how Wikipedia turned reading the encyclopedia, at random and for mere entertainment, from the canonically beyond-the-pale example of nerdiness to one of the most common slacker pastimes. Come on, that’s pretty awesome. From Philip Jose Farmer: “Dullard: Someone who looks up a thing in the encyclopedia, turns directly to the entry, reads it, and then closes the book.” The man would have loved Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/38 "2008-09-14T22:33:21Z")
I love Wikipedia. As previously said: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by **Indistinguishable** > Also, I love how Wikipedia turned reading the encyclopedia, at random and for mere entertainment, from the canonically beyond-the-pale example of nerdiness to one of the most common slacker pastimes. Come on, that’s pretty awesome. And this: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by **DoctorJ** > I think it’s certainly one of the most useful sites on the internet, and one of the most impressive human endeavors period. The only worry I have about Wikipedia is that there may soon come a time (if not now already) when the issue of the discretionary powers of the Wikipedia staff and how their numbers are determined may become a matter of political importance. A [who watches the watchers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F) kind of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/39 "2008-09-14T23:45:56Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I asked my wife about this further and she said she would never use the encyclopedia for the reasons you list but never heard a professor explicitly forbid it. I think professors usually take it for granted that college students aren’t going to be using _Encyclopedia Britannica_ as a cite. Stating this explicitly is a responsibility that usually falls on reference and instruction librarians (like me 🆒). There are very few situations where a general reference encyclopedia like _World Book_, _Britannica_, or Wikipedia would be acceptable sources for a college-level research paper. Encyclopedia articles are normally considered better suited to background reading or “pre-research”. This wouldn’t apply to some subject-specific encyclopedias, though. At my old job I was kind of a maverick when it came to the Wikipedia issue. My ex-boss (who was, incidentally, evil) said that when we were doing a workshop on research methods we should tell students that Wikipedia was unreliable and not useful and point them to Britannica Online for all their general background info needs. What I actually _did_ was show both Britannica Online and Wikipedia, and explained that while the former was more reliable the latter often contained extensive (albeit less authoritative) information on subjects dealt with briefly or not at all in Britannica. I recommended looking at both sources for background info, taking Wiki with a grain of salt, and gave tips on using both kinds of articles as a jumping off place for serious research. I personally use Wikipedia all the time, although I have had some bad experiences with trying to edit articles. I’ve been praised for my efforts on some articles, but had my work reverted multiple times with others. There was generally no reason I could see for this other than a previous editor being unwilling to allow any changes to “their” version of the article. I have better things to do than get into edit wars with jerks like that. ---
**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:** [September 15, 2008, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479/40 "2008-09-15T04:02:59Z")
> [@cckerberos](#): > > History articles can be problematic as well when they touch on issues of nationalism. My personal area of expertise is modern Japanese history and politics. It’s not uncommon for articles in those fields to turn into nasty edit wars between Korean, Chinese, and Japanese posters. I am definitely a Wiki fanboi and one of the reasons is that on contentious articles one can read the Discussion page to get a feel for what the arguments are and possibly make up your own mind. Try doing that with Enc. Brit. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-reliable-and-easily-fixed-or-always-vandalized-and-unreliable/463479.md?page=3)