Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

How Much Do You Trust Wikipedia?

(1/8) > >>

Renegade:
While reading an article in Wikipedia, I saw a "Good" article rating, and then following that link, found that they also have "Featured" articles.

Good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles
Featured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles

I ran down the list of featured ones, and looking in on one (not at random), saw what appeared to be complete bunk. I couldn't help but think that Wikipedia has become nothing more than a shill. The Talk page was terrible. The editors simply ignored any contributions and basically just told people to buzz off. Typical sanctimonious blathering about "WP:RS" and whatnot, all the while never presenting a single reliable source themselves. And this is a "Featured" article? Huh?  :huh:

I suppose that for things like mathematics and most areas of physics, I've got a high amount of confidence in Wikipedia, but for anything historical or political or even in a lot of areas of science (mostly the softer ones like medicine), I pretty much have zero faith anymore. Pretty much anywhere that there's a possible vested interest, I really don't have much faith.

FWIW - I like the idea of "Good" and "Featured" articles. Too bad that some really poor ones make it in there as it really diminishes the value of them by throwing others, that very well could be excellent, under suspicion.

ewemoa:
I suppose that for things like mathematics and most areas of physics, I've got a high amount of confidence in Wikipedia
-Renegade (November 18, 2012, 02:27 AM)
--- End quote ---

Similar.

For many other things I tend to take a look to get a sense of what some interested parties might be wanting to push -- often still find it worth checking out.  Sometimes there's interesting stuff in Talk / View History.

I've found some of the lists that have been compiled to be useful on occasion.

Renegade:
I've found some of the lists that have been compiled to be useful on occasion.
-ewemoa (November 18, 2012, 02:43 AM)
--- End quote ---

+1

I love the lists. They really simplify finding things, especially when you don't know what you're looking for. They don't even need to be objective, because you can just go off and find whatever you're looking for elsewhere. Well, if they're included in the list.

Paul Keith:
I voted 0 but not because I distrust Wikipedia but rather wikis are a mirror to the internet.

In the ideal setting of the internet, wikis are great at bypassing the tl;dr creep that plagues many internet discussions. If every forum thread started out as a wiki first before that wiki then becomes a neutral group blog/google doc article that is then discussed by the internet, discussions would actually bear more information to the average internet reader. A true paradigm shift to the classic method of how footnotes should be used if you may and presented in a manner more addicting to click and research and less academically imposing and more casual friendly to comment.

...but it's not. Wiki became more of a reference/falling point and because Wiki's roots and boom came from Wikipedia, it kept many of the bad stuff of encyclopedia. The authoritarian end-text for introductionary subjects. The right pseudo-authoritative subject for Google to boost it's links up in searches (which ultimately was it's demise). For that it becomes a non-sequitur except to be 0% trusted for that is the simplest way to call for critical thinking.

The actual ratings don't matter above that. Even if you voted 1, what if a physics info is wrong? The ignorant can never tell, only those who regularly monitor Wikipedia can spot it so it becomes another forum even in the best of times and once that mistake is corrected, it's a praise for the Wiki while ignoring that it goes both ways for an Encyclopedia. If an Encyclopedia is consistantly mistaken, then it's bad as an end reference link, but it's great as the beginning point of a forum level type of discussion.

...and that's just one floor below the sad but already established belief in wikis. Going deeper could fill up an entire forum because it goes to the heart of everything. Questions such as:

Why do encyclopedias have to be authoritative in the modern era anyway?

Why and how casual should simple wiki-encyclopedias be presented as?

How should wikis reduce their rules to reduce their bureaucratic hive mind as well as to make it easier for someone to just jump in without being bombarded by acronyms?

What can be done with a problematic wiki site once it has become an established website to debunk it's flaws?

It's not just a deep and shallow subject. It is seeing a zit in the mirror. Should you trust yourself into thinking it's harmless? Should you trust yourself into thinking it's harmless enough because it's common? Should you trust the 1st doctor? Should you distrust every zit as harmless because you were once unlucky to get a life threatening zit? ...and how much knowledge/information with your own zit should you pass along as authoritative statements for the zits of others especially on web level general info? Like how true is it that your grandparents are stressing you out to the point of suicide because of the existence of a single zit or a link showing evidence that one guy who committed suicide had a zit in the same spot and documented it's notability which then existed in a wiki article which then gets put on a pedestal when used as a link?

IainB:
How much do I trust Wikipedia? I don't.
Wikipedia does not - cannot - provide an authoritative source of reference.

Whilst there is little doubt in my mind that there is potentially much that could be or indeed is useful and relevant in probably most of the Wikipedia entries, there is also little doubt (from personal experience) that there is much that is seriously flawed - e.g., suffering from graffiti, vandalism, being opinion-based and irrational (as opposed to factual and rational), being biased, based on hearsay, apocryphal, or just plain wrong.
All this rubbish comes from anonymous authors, from registered Wikipedia authors, and from Wikipedia's so-called "professional" editors [Yeah, right.] alike. The latter in particular are very suspect IMHO, because some have been known to even lie about their "credentials" just so as to get into a position where they can influence the wording of specific areas of "history" or knowledge - all in the name of religio-political ideology, apparently. Or maybe they were paid to do it. Who knows?

Somewhat depressingly, I think, there seem to be a lot of people out there who don't like to see any version of the truth being promulgated except their own preferred bias or their own reality bubble or paradigm. In these cases, rational argument/debate is neither wanted/accepted nor tolerated, and often actively discouraged with prejudice. Critical thinking is a victim here.

From my experience, this seems to be especially so in areas relating to religio-political ideology, business management, science, and IT practice and theory - which all covers a potentially huge  area of human information/knowledge.
This gives me some concern. For example, in IT in particular, where I have seen so much rubbish in IT-related areas that it makes me wonder sometimes whether the IT sector hasn't been cursed with attracting some of the most irrational, ignorant and narrowest minds on the planet - as well as some of the brightest.

In any event, my recommendation is to by all means use Wikipedia as a first point of reference - if you wish to do that (and it is very handy) - but not to leave it at that, and to always take what Wikipedia says with a pinch of salt until you can confirm what it says after having accessed authoritative sources.
I therefore avoid mentioning Wikipedia when I need to provide an authoritative reference to clients.
One of my personal favourites since childhood has been Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page