Q&A: Why Wikipedia considered a reliable source if everyone can edit it?
Image by quartermane
Question by Tan F: Why Wikipedia considered a reliable source if everyone can edit it?
I just noticed that i can edit Wikipedia entries, i tried… and i wonder why is this allowed if everyone can wrtie whatever they want? :\
Best answer:
Answer by Greyolddave
Really its a matter of trust. In most cases people who are experts in one part of the subject can add their part and everyone works together.
However, there are some subjects that are controversial and different sides try to blitz the other side’s view. In those cases the authors lock the article.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
| Print article | This entry was posted by Hot4u on December 26, 2010 at 9:55 pm, and is filed under Top Sites. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 1 year ago
Nope it’s not while they have gotten better at seeing what gets by but if you do get info double check it over the web and teachers hate it when you cite it
about 1 year ago
Wikipedia ISN’T considered a reliable source of information. Granted you have an army of nerds who are constantly on the lookout for trolls and vandals who change articles for cheap laughs, but they don’t know everything and often miss stuff. I’ve seen tons of errors and inconsistencies on Wikipedia, as well as information which is blatantly false.
I think the idea behind Wikipedia was to create one massive website that had an article on everything, and the quickest and easiest way for the Wikipedia admins to do that was to basically just say “eff” it and let the users input information. It kind of worked, I guess.
about 1 year ago
Of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and thanks to the work of critics of the site, I believe MOST people do not consider it to be a reliable source. Sonny, listen to me.
One of the worst articles on Wikipedia that I ever encountered was one called “History of Western Eurasia”. It required my using a “sockpuppet” account to get the attention needed to get the article removed from Wikipedia, and then even the sockpuppet was banned from Wikipedia. I’ve preserved a copy of the article here:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Worst_of_Wikipedia/History_of_western_Eurasia
You can see how it is incomprehensible, written as if by a seventh-grader who was asked to read a paragraph at a time from a European History book, then asked to close the book and try to immediately summarize what he’d just read.
Another example or two of terrible Wikipedia articles (compared to better articles elsewhere) are the following:
Wikipedia on “Consumer economy”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_economy
Another site on “Consumer economy”:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Consumer_economy
Wikipedia on “Brandywine Springs”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandywine_Springs
Another site on “Brandywine Springs”:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Brandywine_Springs
I don’t understand why (at least for the two subjects shown above) why anyone would prefer the Wikipedia version of those articles!
about 1 year ago
Because most people don’t know that they can edit Wikipedia. They think that Wikipedia actually has paid staff to write (or at least verify) article content. Surely they could pay a few fact-checkers, since they have millions of dollars rolling in during a depression, when most legitimate charities struggle to stay afloat.
about 1 year ago
Wikipedia is a reliable source because it is holy and infallible. Its wise admins will only allow you to post true information.
about 1 year ago
I don’t know about you, but I never considred Wikipedia a reliable source for anything. Yes, you can edit Wikipedia entries, as long as you don’t run afoul of the Wikischutzstaffel. Allowing anyone to edit was supposed to be the whole point of Wikipedia.
But a small group of people have taken over Wikipedia and try to control its content with an iron fist. However, since Wikipedia is so large, they can’t keep an eye on everything. Besides, their criteria for validity isn’t whether the information is correct and/or well-written, but whether it was written by a Wikipedia loyalist or not.
about 1 year ago
Not at all. Anybody can edit it and it is often vandalized. However, some legit sources are listed at the bottom of most Wikipedia articles.
about 1 year ago
Most people know that Wikipedia alone is not a reliable source. That’s why you should verify any information using other sources or check any links given.
about 1 year ago
Yes, everyone can edit Wikipedia, but also everyone is allowed to “undo” edits by others. If you add something to Wikipedia without providing a supporting reliable reference, others will delete your edit pretty quickly.
Just my $ .02