How accurate is Wikipedia?

[tlc38tlc38]

I was just wondering how accurate Wikpedia was....


It lists upcoming releases for the PE line and in October 2010 it has Beauty and the Beast & The Lion King being released.

[Poody]

People can post whatever they want on there..... Same as say, this forum.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I was just wondering how accurate Wikpedia was....


It lists upcoming releases for the PE line and in October 2010 it has Beauty and the Beast & The Lion King being released.

There's your first waste of time...

[Neal]

I once heard a statistic that roughly 85% of Wikipedia is as accurate and well sourced as Encyclopedia Britannica (this was an independent study, too, not the site's own promotional line).

What's accurate is what's 'stagnant' - health issues such as like heart attacks which we mostly know everything about now. Long past history such as World War I where no new developments are being made. Those kinds of articles are written often by doctors, scholars, and specialists who want to help Wikipedia become a reputable resource.

When it comes to the other 15% - well, that's usually entertainment related. News about bands, Hollywood actors, upcoming films, in-development video games - wishful thinkers get on their and post whatever flight of fancy they feel like.

So Wikipedia can be accurate for topics that are set in stone. As for 'developing' topics like entertainment - take everything with a grain of salt.

[Heil Donald Duck]

I once heard a statistic that roughly 85% of Wikipedia is as accurate and well sourced as Encyclopedia Britannica (this was an independent study, too, not the site's own promotional line).

What's accurate is what's 'stagnant' - health issues such as like heart attacks which we mostly know everything about now. Long past history such as World War I where no new developments are being made. Those kinds of articles are written often by doctors, scholars, and specialists who want to help Wikipedia become a reputable resource.

When it comes to the other 15% - well, that's usually entertainment related. News about bands, Hollywood actors, upcoming films, in-development video games - wishful thinkers get on their and post whatever flight of fancy they feel like.

So Wikipedia can be accurate for topics that are set in stone. As for 'developing' topics like entertainment - take everything with a grain of salt.

Im not so sure about that. I usually end in checking the externial links that are given about topic in wikipedia.

[Neal]

I will admit Wikipedia should be no ones sole source for any piece of information - but for any research subject, no one should use just one resource.

I, myself, know the issues behind Wiki. I groaned in agony when a girl at a Forensics meet I was at began her speech with "according to wikipedia..."

Even so, read this:

...Nature," a science journalism site, to conduct a survey on the accuracy of the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

According to an investigation carried out by "Nature", where Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science was reviewed; numerous errors in both encyclopedias, were revealed. But among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica contained about three.

"Nature" maintains its investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great, at least when it comes to science entries. In the study, entries were chosen from the Web sites of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team.

Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements - 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I once heard a statistic that roughly 85% of Wikipedia is as accurate and well sourced as Encyclopedia Britannica (this was an independent study, too, not the site's own promotional line).

What's accurate is what's 'stagnant' - health issues such as like heart attacks which we mostly know everything about now. Long past history such as World War I where no new developments are being made. Those kinds of articles are written often by doctors, scholars, and specialists who want to help Wikipedia become a reputable resource.

When it comes to the other 15% - well, that's usually entertainment related. News about bands, Hollywood actors, upcoming films, in-development video games - wishful thinkers get on their and post whatever flight of fancy they feel like.

So Wikipedia can be accurate for topics that are set in stone. As for 'developing' topics like entertainment - take everything with a grain of salt.

this is true as well Neal, if you look at the history based pages you can see tons of citations to real sources and you can tell that somebody put alot of effort into them (probably realizing that some kid somewhere will go to that page first for whatever project) like us Disney fans who do update wiki to make sure it's accurate as possible. The Lion King thing is obviously false and I'm sure someone will fix it in the mean time.

[Escapay]

This is how accurate Wikipedia is.

Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and given the fact that online stores make no mention of it being out of print (Amazon usually as a "this item will go out of print, order while it's still in stock" type of warning), and the fact that UD itself has not mentioned it at all, we can take wiki to be rumors and/or misinformation.

I've edited the article to remove the out-of-print status on wiki, and replaced it with something more substantial and accurate. Until there's actually more confirmation on it being placed back in the vault, I would still consider it in-print.

The OOP Wiki Entry:


The "Look, anything can be edited here" Entry:


The now correct Entry:

albert

[SpringHeelJack]

I mean, if Albert can edit wikipedia, that should give an idea of the kind of whack-jobs who edit articles there.

[Escapay]

I mean, if Albert can edit wikipedia, that should give an idea of the kind of whack-jobs who edit articles there.

Well, I'm not the only whack-job, Brendan. After all, you contributed the image of the UD main page for UD's wiki article!

albert

[SpringHeelJack]

Gasp! You're right!

So basically, don't trust wikipedia, because I can and sometimes do edit it. Sometimes I get drunk and edit it just for funsies. And then the real world must quickly struggle to alter itself so that it corresponds to the article I edited, and it all becomes a mess, like that one time when I turned Justin Timberlake into a mermaid from Venus. He was so mad...

Why is there no chat going on now? I'm so bored. Scappy-Doo, make me un-bored.

[MagicMirror]

More accurate than Conservapedia, that's for sure!

[dvdjunkie]

As with a lot of these so-called "Informational Sites", I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. They have the reputation of being the biggest "Fountain of Mis-Information" on the internet, while at other times they are 'spot-on'. I don't use Wikipedia as the end-all when I am looking for an answer, I but I do read what they have to say and then further my pursuit of the answer.

As with most sites, they are as accurate as the people who post on them are.

Wikipedia has provided me with an endless supply of comedy routines for my 'stand-up' act. Let me tell you, without Wikipedia, I might not have as many good jokes to tell as I do.

[Lazario]

I have never used Wikipedia for any serious information, so I trust all the general information I get from them implicitly.

[Harbinger]

It's more reliable than people think thanks to many of the editors.

[pap64]

I'll admit that I use Wikipedia heavily when doing research. But like its been mentioned already it isn't my only source. I use books, other sites and even newspapers in order to make a meatier paper full of info.

I think the problem with Wikipedia is that they allow anyone to edit their entries. Thanks to this they turned the site from a solid source of information into a never ending internet joke (as dvdjunkie has confessed). People CAN easily edit the information.

If I were the head of the site I would eliminate the edit button. If someone wants to add or correct a piece of information they should submit a message and demand proof. Then after people read through it they decide whether it goes on the site or not.

It annoys me how the Wiki bosses track down anyone that might use the site for self promotion, but do nothing towards fixing any of their information or working hard towards keeping their integrity intact.

You know someone is severely wrong when AMERICAN DAD quotes you as a joke...

[SpringHeelJack]

If I were the head of the site I would eliminate the edit button. If someone wants to add or correct a piece of information they should submit a message and demand proof. Then after people read through it they decide whether it goes on the site or not.

Yeah, that's great in theory, but do you have any idea how much extra time, resources, and manpower it would take to have someone physically double-check any edit anyone wants to make? Frankly, while letting idiots on the internet edit fact-based articles isn't the best idea, it's much easier than having a team of people fact check everything. The idea is that people will weed out false information of their own, which typically happens.

And "American Dad"? Make a joke? HA. That'll be the day.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Well in wiki's defense it is a great way to read up on Murder, She Wrote episodes and MST3K facts. Where else can I do that so easily and quickly? And if there is some Murder, She Wrote fan site (like jessicafletcher.com) please tell me about it Aaron.

[Escapay]

And if there is some Murder, She Wrote fan site (like jessicafletcher.com) please tell me about it Aaron.

I'm not Aaron, but I did a quick google search and found this:

http://jesmaine.tripod.com/index.definitiveMSW.html

HTH!

ETA:
Looks like I beat Aaron by 1 minute!

albert

[AwallaceUNC]

Well in wiki's defense it is a great way to read up on Murder, She Wrote episodes and MST3K facts. Where else can I do that so easily and quickly? And if there is some Murder, She Wrote fan site (like jessicafletcher.com) please tell me about it Aaron.

I've never seen one that does the show justice. Here are some fan sites, though:

http://jesmaine.tripod.com/index.definitiveMSW.html
http://www.angelalansbury.net/msw.html

-Aaron