Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Iffy-pedia: Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors!

Comments

  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    edited April 2012
    I guess this should not be surprising as, I believe, anyone can edit Wiki. No?
  • DaltheJigsawDaltheJigsaw Mountain View Veteran
    I guess this should not be surprising as, I believe, anyone can edit Wiki. No?
    Correct. I think they are working something out, where you have to sign up in order to edit. Basically a membership. A free one, but still it takes time to sign up and such.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    This is utter tripe and a tired topic.
    The research was conducted by the scholarly Public Relations Journal who quizzed 1,284 members about their clients' Wikipedia entries.
    So the real headline is: 60% of PR folks say their clients are inaccurately portrayed on Wikipedia.

    Just shameful reporting.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    I always laugh when a newspaper reports on something like this.

    When I was principal, we had one of those display signs out in front. I would write out messages for the custodian to put up. The custodian was Vietnamese with really poor language skills, so shortly after he would put up the sign message I would go out to check it with him. One day the local newspaper came by before I got out there, took a pic of it, and published it...a couple of dumb mistakes.

    I held my tongue and let it slip by, but the article they attached to the photo was chock full of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors.

    It's just a cheap shot.
  • patbbpatbb Veteran
    >Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors!

    how many facts are there in each wiki articles on average?

    If we get this number, we can start to crunch some numbers and calculate the %.


    I'd say it must be very low % of factual errors.
    could turn out to be surprisingly low actually.
  • B5CB5C Veteran


    Just shameful reporting.
    Of course. It's the freaking DAILY MAIL!!

  • DaltheJigsawDaltheJigsaw Mountain View Veteran


    Just shameful reporting.
    Of course. It's the freaking DAILY MAIL!!

    Dailymail did not conduct this research.
  • B5CB5C Veteran


    Dailymail did not conduct this research.
    So does the stuff that Fox News reports. A good number of their reports are very unreliable.
    Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

    Over the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia, the free, open-access encyclopedia, has taken a great deal of flak in the press for problems related to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability.
    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
  • MsJeniMsJeni
    lol, when my son was in regular schools they told them not to use Wikipedia for reference in any of their research. I know there are a lot of opinions and errors on the information the provide, however, I look at it as a starting point for researching something. At least their definitions are mostly correct, also pretty much anything that needs factual data will be sited at the bottom, so you can go to the sources, where they got their information and find more information and on and on. But really if I am trying to find the meaning of Dingle-berries and where they are grown, I think Wikipedia will work just fine.

    Consider this, here in US, many things in our "history" are opinions, yeah sure dates are generally accurate, but beyond that the details are, imo, skewed and written in biased ways. Not exactly erroneous, but not very opinionated at minimum.
    And new media here is a joke. It was rule in Florida Supreme Court 'they are entertainment, therefore they don't have to tell the truth or facts.' (paraphrasing)

    So-be-it Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, history books, newspapers, Network media or any other form we get information from, it is best to get information from as many sources as you can, apply some common sense, then try figure out what you believe is true about it.

    As my friend likes to say, "the one thing I know, is I don't know anything, for sure", especially not these days. We are fed lies and 1/2 truths from all "reliable information sources". Often times you can't even trust what you think you see right in front of you. LOL. IMO, no one should ever fully put trust and faith in anyone once source, period.
  • DaltheJigsawDaltheJigsaw Mountain View Veteran
    lol, when my son was in regular schools they told them not to use Wikipedia for reference in any of their research. I know there are a lot of opinions and errors on the information the provide, however, I look at it as a starting point for researching something. At least their definitions are mostly correct, also pretty much anything that needs factual data will be sited at the bottom, so you can go to the sources, where they got their information and find more information and on and on. But really if I am trying to find the meaning of Dingle-berries and where they are grown, I think Wikipedia will work just fine.

    Consider this, here in US, many things in our "history" are opinions, yeah sure dates are generally accurate, but beyond that the details are, imo, skewed and written in biased ways. Not exactly erroneous, but not very opinionated at minimum.
    And new media here is a joke. It was rule in Florida Supreme Court 'they are entertainment, therefore they don't have to tell the truth or facts.' (paraphrasing)

    So-be-it Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, history books, newspapers, Network media or any other form we get information from, it is best to get information from as many sources as you can, apply some common sense, then try figure out what you believe is true about it.

    As my friend likes to say, "the one thing I know, is I don't know anything, for sure", especially not these days. We are fed lies and 1/2 truths from all "reliable information sources". Often times you can't even trust what you think you see right in front of you. LOL. IMO, no one should ever fully put trust and faith in anyone once source, period.
    As they say. Winners are the ones who write the history books.
  • ZeroZero Veteran

    Of course. It's the freaking DAILY MAIL!!
    The Daily Mail is well known for spinning tripe - the survey itself is limited to company information - its a misleading title - no mention of how many errors, type of error, significance etc - the professor who states its unacceptable somehow places a duty of care on a free service - stop plagarising from one source! I think the errors should remain to catch out the lazy cheats!! If you do a company presentation based solely on wiki as a source then you probably deserve to be fired!!

    There are also errors in everything - certainty occurs within a statistically acceptable range of error...

    They could probably do with updating quicker though...
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    And of course, companies like Encyclopedia Brittanica and other pay-for-use sources just hate Wikipedia and are more than happy to point out Wikipedia's flaws. On the other hand, with the lag time between new information and actual publication, the old hard cover encyclopedias were out of date before the first page was ever opened.
  • B5CB5C Veteran
    On the other hand, with the lag time between new information and actual publication, the old hard cover encyclopedias were out of date before the first page was ever opened.
    That is why they stopped making Hardcovers this year.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    On the other hand, with the lag time between new information and actual publication, the old hard cover encyclopedias were out of date before the first page was ever opened.
    That is why they stopped making Hardcovers this year.
    No, they stopped making them because sales had plummeted.

  • ThailandTomThailandTom Veteran
    Like MsJeni said, when I was at university we were advised not to use wikipedia for any of our essays because of the reliability of it.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Like MsJeni said, when I was at university we were advised not to use wikipedia for any of our essays because of the reliability of it.
    I agree. But there's a time and place for everything. Pop media of any form is generally not what university study calls for.

    But for the most part, Wikipedia is used for "everyday life".
  • BekenzeBekenze
    Articles must have citations after something is written. If you aren't sure if something is true, then go to that source.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    I think Wiki's generally pretty good. And it's free! :p
Sign In or Register to comment.