Reliability of Wikipedia.

[leo-rcc]

I one reads my messages again, one would find that in each and every single message I've stated that one should use Wikipedia as a starting point.

My problem is that people tend to think of wiki as unreliable and that is blatantly not true. I challenge anyone to find me an article on a subject that is factually wrong. I am not claiming it doesn't exist but you will be hard pressed to find one in 10.000 articles. And I am not talking about vandalized articles since they are being restored very quickly, or articles in the past because the strength of a dynamic system like wiki is it power to repair itself.

Nature, Time magazine, the TUe, and dozens of others have tested the accuracy of Wikipedia and found less, the same amount, or a few more errors then they found in Elsevier, EB, or Encarta. These tests were done by sending articles to experts in the subject without a source, and letting them check the articles for factual errors or mistakes in the understanding of the subjects.

EB contended the findings and methodology of Nature scientific Journal in an open letter and demanded Nature retracted their findings. Nature refused and sent out their own letter explaining their methodology and why it is scientifically valid.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43...00a-s1.doc
The methodology Nature Scientific Journal used.

http://corporate.britannica.com/britanni...sponse.pdf
EB's criticism.

http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Bri...sponse.pdf
Nature's Response to EB.

[Kyuuketsuki]

It's a pet peeve of mine when people question Wikipedia's integrity, because usually these people don't truly understand how it works.

I assume you are not applying that to me (or indeed some others who have commented in these forums negatively in the past, ChatPilot for one) or I might be tempted to suggest that many people seem to say that kind of thing when the real difference is that they do know what you think they don't but simply disagree.

Kyu

[Overmars]

I usually use Wikipedia for school assignments and it has never failed me, of course if I do some research about a subject I use more sources

[Meatball]

It's a pet peeve of mine when people question Wikipedia's integrity, because usually these people don't truly understand how it works.

I assume you are not applying that to me (or indeed some others who have commented in these forums negatively in the past, ChatPilot for one) or I might be tempted to suggest that many people seem to say that kind of thing when the real difference is that they do know what you think they don't but simply disagree.

Kyu

I just feel that when a Wikipedia article has a list of references for it's various statements, to throw that into question is to doubt anything but first-hand experience. I mean, how is Wikipedia any less reliable than scientific journal when we have a community of people keeping it constantly updated, with extensive references?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I assume you are not applying that to me (or indeed some others who have commented in these forums negatively in the past, ChatPilot for one) or I might be tempted to suggest that many people seem to say that kind of thing when the real difference is that they do know what you think they don't but simply disagree.

I just feel that when a Wikipedia article has a list of references for it's various statements, to throw that into question is to doubt anything but first-hand experience. I mean, how is Wikipedia any less reliable than scientific journal when we have a community of people keeping it constantly updated, with extensive references?

You're comparing Wikipedia to peer-reviewed scientific journals? You serious?

Do you not believe that relevant expertise means anything at all?

I mean hey, if that's true, why the frakk do we need scientific journals anyway?

Kyu

[Meatball]

You're comparing Wikipedia to peer-reviewed scientific journals? You serious?

Obviously Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal, and obviously it's not going to replace scientific journals.

Why is it that a Wikipedia article, a community reviewed document with extensive references(often including respected scientific journals) can simply be called unreliable as a matter of opinion?

Tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia are just as good as you can find anywhere, online or off. Do you disagree?

I just think people are misinformed about the whole structure and workings of Wikipedia, and jump to conclusions.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Obviously Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal, and obviously it's not going to replace scientific journals.

Then why did you say it was?

Tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia are just as good as you can find anywhere, online or off. Do you disagree?

I don't consider Wikipedia reliable as a source no ... as previously stated it's "fine" for some stuff but in essence it's a debating forum and for anything contentious it's awful. I do use Wiki but only as a starting point, never, withoiut qualification, as a reference.

I just think people are misinformed about the whole structure and workings of Wikipedia, and jump to conclusions.

And I think you have a far too positive a view of it.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

I don't consider Wikipedia reliable as a source no ... as previously stated it's "fine" for some stuff but in essence it's a debating forum and for anything contentious it's awful. I do use Wiki but only as a starting point, never, withoiut qulaification, as a reference.

Can you point me to one of these contentious, wrong articles?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't consider Wikipedia reliable as a source no ... as previously stated it's "fine" for some stuff but in essence it's a debating forum and for anything contentious it's awful. I do use Wiki but only as a starting point, never, without qulaification, as a reference.

Can you point me to one of these contentious, wrong articles?

Go look up on the historicity of Christ.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

You mean to tell me that a subject where scientists are not even in agreement upon is a base for dismissing Wiki as a reliable source?

What reliable source on the historicity of Jesus do you have?