11-06-2005 17:27									#1
	wikipedia Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

how credible would you judge wikipedia to be? who can write there? is there any kind of check? who administers it? who's funding it? (always follow the money)

how would you rate its credibility in any case?

	11-06-2005 17:40									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Afaik everyone can write there (or not?).....I like the idea of wiki, and I use it myself if I want quick info about something, but for important things I would rather use something else.....I saw people using it at the uni as reference - that I wouldn't do and wouldn't recommend.

	11-06-2005 18:13									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Wikipedia's credibility? On a scale 1 to 10, probably about 2.

It's written by anyone interested in any particular subject. There's no check on the realibily of the information whatsoever, but anyone can overwrite any existing article, so if you don't agree with an article you just replace it with your own version (until someone comes around and replaces yours). For popular topics this means articles are sometimes of somewhat acceptable quality but especially for unpopular topics they typically represent the point of view of one individual and are no better than any random website (except that websites usually provide some meta information about the credibilty of the source, something which tends to be absent in wikipedia -- in fact, the very inclusion on wikipedia can create a false illusion of credibility).

As far as I can tell, it's pretty almost without exception being maintained by amateurs with no academic credentials of any kind. The only real use of articles on wikipedia is the links to the sources they quote (if any).

I've found this to be a somewhat amusing illustration of my point:

Attachment: wiki_problem2.jpg
This has been downloaded 158 time(s).

	11-06-2005 18:15									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

yep...

	11-06-2005 18:20									#5
	Put an end to popups!

Whereas there are many topics that Wikipedia provides an excellent coverage of, and even more topics for which Wikipedia is an excellent source simply because of its ease of use and how all the information is there, in a single place. After all, things such as what Locutus posted do get removed very quickly.

	11-06-2005 18:21									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Did Stew write that article.

	11-06-2005 18:31									#7
	Re: wikipedia Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 how credible would you judge wikipedia to be? who can write there? is there any kind of check? who administers it? who's funding it? (always follow the money) how would you rate its credibility in any case?

I doubt its credibility very much and pretty much discount any in-depth cites people make using it.

By "in-depth cites" I don't mean basic things like dates and such but explanation of causes.

	11-06-2005 18:37									#8
	Support Apolyton

I wouldn't use it for a source for a paper, but I've never found any mistakes there.

	11-06-2005 18:37									#9
	Support Apolyton

There are maybe a handful of (mainstream) topics for which the coverage can be described as 'excellent', it really depends on the individuals making the contribution and the ability of the rest of the users to keep their filthy little fingers off those contributions. But this happens only very rarely in my experience. Plus, even if the explanantion is excellent in quality, it still doesn't really mean anything if it's not from any kind of credible source, which wikipedia by definition isn't because anyone could've written any of it.

Again, the only truely credible part of wikipedia is the links it provides, because those can be judged in their own right and can sometimes be both credible and relevant (keyword: sometimes). But even then you have no way of knowing if all relevant sources have been listed, it's still possible to create a bias by excluding certain sources from your list of references.

So all-in-all anyone looking for serious and credible information would be wise to avoid Wikipedia. There are many knowledge bases online, both generic and specific, that provide much more credible information of typically much better quality on the same topics that Wikipedia does. Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia and even MSN Encarta are all fine examples of generic online encyclopedias that are overall much better and certainly much more credible than Wikipedia.

	11-06-2005 18:38									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I wouldn't use it for a source for a paper, but I've never found any mistakes there.

You must not have looked very hard...

	11-06-2005 18:40									#11
	Tired of ads?

Sometimes when I'm a little bored, I may take a look at :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...eleted_Nonsense

	11-06-2005 18:43									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Um, wouldn't the Catholic Encyclopedia be maintained by people who are biased in favor of the Church? To the extent that they might have unreliable information on some topics?

	11-06-2005 18:45									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Yes, but at least with the Catholic Encyclopedia you know it's maintained by Catholics (who might or might not biased in favor of the Church) so you can discount it accordingly. With Wiki you don't have the slightest idea who posted anything.

	11-06-2005 18:47									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with some of the concerns about wikipedia -- but I'm just pointing out the flaw with Catholic Encyclopedia.

	11-06-2005 18:49									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Locutus You must not have looked very hard...

I use it frequently, but I don't really look for mistakes.

	11-06-2005 18:50									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Um, wouldn't the Catholic Encyclopedia be maintained by people who are biased in favor of the Church? To the extent that they might have unreliable information on some topics?

Everyone is biased.

	11-06-2005 18:51									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

Yes, you always have be be wary of the bias and focus of the Catholic Encyclopedia (but that's true for any source), especially for religious topics, but the overall quality and depth of their articles is truely excellent. Most of the time I cannot detect any bias -- and that's coming from me, a staunch atheist who's always a bit (overly?) paranoid about Christian biases.

	11-06-2005 20:09									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

Apart from controversial topics, where POV warriors tend to wreck pages, there's nothing wrong with the Wikipedia. It has no peer in any encyclopaedia for depth and sheer variety.

On the stuff I am an expert about (mainly Greek Philosophy), I think that Wikipedia is sometimes wrong, but it is a hell of a lot better than Britannica on the same subject, or at least it was last time I looked.

So for me, the claims made against it are moot. I wouldn't use it as a citation for a paper, but I wouldn't use any of the mainstream encyclopaedias either, because they are worse.

	11-06-2005 20:12									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

On a scale of 1 - 10, I'd say Wikipedia is probably around 4. It needs checks and balances... perhaps some kind of incubation period for articles where they can become of sufficient quality, after which they cannot be changed unless it's by someone with credentials.

Brittanica is a far better source... probably an 8 or a 9

	11-06-2005 20:30									#20
	Suffering from ads?

Last time when /. linked to a Wikepidia article somebody put something stupid in there, but it got removed quickly. I saw the passage, was going to remove it, but somebody beat me to it already.

As all encyclopedia, it's not the final authority on any subject, but it's a good starting point.

	11-06-2005 20:39									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The Wikipedia is about as reliable a source as the collective total of privately edited sites on the net is. In other words, it's hardly reliable at all, in and of itself, and you have to be very careful with the personal and ideological bias present, but it's certainly useful because of its unparallelled scope. Plus, if you know what you're doing (and know how to read history and comment pages, in this case), you can get a more balanced view from what is de facto several mutually controlling sources. As any journalist would tell you, what both sides in an issue agree on is very probably true.

That said, my own experiences with trying to edit articles in my field have been frustrating, to say the least. A lot of users just add a line or two without understanding the article structure, insert props for their favourite practitioners of an activity, or remove stuff others have written because they're biased in some way.

	11-06-2005 20:58									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

You are worried about article structure on the Wikipedia, Buck?

	11-06-2005 20:59									#23
	Support Apolyton

Wikipedia is a very handy reference, one of the best available on the internet. Citing it in a serious paper would be madness or worse though; I would fail any student I found to be using it in a works cited page if I were a prof.

	11-06-2005 21:02									#24
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I think Wikipedia is quite acurate. I'd give it a 7 or 8 out of 10. Again, its not something I'd cite in a formal paper, but overall I think it is an amazing project.

Mistakes and bias gets into everything, even big professional encyclopedias. The benefit of Wikipedia though is it has tens of thousands of editors combing through everything and fixing errors.

For instance, Locutus, your example 'proving' Wikipedia's innaccuracy was quite deceptive. If you go and check out that page now, it is updated and reasonably accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=Malcolm_Glazer

You went back and found an instance of the entry from a month ago. That vandalized entry lasted for exactly 2 hours and 6 minutes. Maybe if you had fixed it yourself instead of taking a screen shot in order to slander Wikipedia it would have lasted for less time. But honestly, is a vandalized entry that is public for just over 2 hours really the end of the world? Should we turn away forever from Wikipedia because some person came and vandalized an entry?

The information is all still there, and anyone (yes even you Locutus) can restore the good entry.

I think Wikipedia is an amazing resource, and I use it often.

	11-06-2005 21:02									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Thanks for the replies, my impression from reading them is that wikipedia is most certaintly not reliable. I didn't know (and that's why I was asking) how wikipedia is written, who are its authors, what were its sources etc.
Also I'll agree that very few sources if anything is unbiased but I prefer knowing where that bias comes from so I can classify it, counter it with its opposite and maybe start to get an idea about something. Thanks again.

	11-06-2005 21:06									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 Thanks for the replies, my impression from reading them is that wikipedia is most certaintly not reliable.

Then make it more reliable by adding your own expertise to it.

	11-06-2005 21:09									#27
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Then make it more reliable by adding your own expertise to it.

From what I gather that would be useless. It can be re-written over and even if what I wrote about a subject was good, noone would know who I am what are my credentials etc so one would be justified to be suspicious of my work just as much as I of his. I'm not saying wikipedia is worthless but that it can't be trusted for serious work. Some of its articles are pretty much ok (the ones I checked and already know something about).

	11-06-2005 21:16									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 From what I gather that would be useless.

Seeing that there are a large number of good entries this does not appear to be the case.

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 I'm not saying wikipedia is worthless but that it can't be trusted for serious work.

Anybody who's doing serious work, or not-so-serious work won't depend solely on a single source, unless that single source happens to be some kind of ultimate authority in a particular field, such as Stephen Hawking.

	11-06-2005 21:18									#29
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Seeing that there are a large number of good entries this does not appear to be the case.

You're right, it's not really useless but I don't think it's worth the trouble. Me, personally. But also bare in mind that I'm a very money oriented person. If you don't pay me, I do nothing for free

	11-06-2005 21:26									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Anybody who's doing serious work, or not-so-serious work won't depend solely on a single source,

Yes but you'll know which source it is each and every time. With wikipedia it can be anybody.