Wikipedia - how accurate

GTENVY · 29-09-2008, 07:46 PM

Hey guys, just wanting to find out the general concensus of what people think re: wikipedia.

Stumbled across this bit of info;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden

Yellow_Festiva · 29-09-2008, 08:14 PM

A very long and detailed history. Wikipedia is made 'by the people, for the people'... so anything like that can have a strong bias.

I remember a few years ago there was a famous Aussie racing identity (I think???) who was slandered beyond belief... the stuff written was disgusting, and there for all the public to see. Don't know what the process is to create or edit a Wiki page, but it looks like the page was written by a family member venting after a bitter divorce or similar..

Paxton · 29-09-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

A very long and detailed history. Wikipedia is made 'by the people, for the people'... so anything like that can have a strong bias.

I remember a few years ago there was a famous Aussie racing identity (I think???) who was slandered beyond belief... the stuff written was disgusting, and there for all the public to see. Don't know what the process is to create or edit a Wiki page, but it looks like the page was written by a family member venting after a bitter divorce or similar..

Bob Jane's was bloody hilarious.

I miss the old days when encyclopaedias were out of date when printed/pressed onto CD. At least they were accurate. Wikipedia, however isn't accurate at the best of times. I've stopped going there, and I am back to Google as a starting point for Information, generally ignoring the Wikipedia entries.

The Stylist · 30-09-2008, 07:33 AM

Wikipedia is alright for very basic knowledge of a subject, however anyone and everyone can submit info on Wikipedia that is "apparently" factual. If you need sound research then look elsewhere.

Daymoe · 30-09-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Stylist

Wikipedia is alright for very basic knowledge of a subject, however anyone and everyone can submit info on Wikipedia that is "apparently" factual. If you need sound research then look elsewhere.

I was looking up specifications for a Mig 29 Fulcrum and the details like wing span, area, fuel capacity was spot on with other sources.

Also, Wikipedia bans IPs if you get caught editing in stupid stuff, anything you edit needs to have a reference to back it up also.

gcg2503 · 30-09-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxton

Bob Jane's was bloody hilarious.

I miss the old days when encyclopaedias were out of date when printed/pressed onto CD. At least they were accurate. Wikipedia, however isn't accurate at the best of times. I've stopped going there, and I am back to Google as a starting point for Information, generally ignoring the Wikipedia entries.

Very sad that I can remember the World Book Encyclopedia / Enc. Brittanica salespeople coming past the house!

Wouldn't take Wikipedia as gospel, prefer google for various different sources

DoreSlamR · 29-09-2008, 08:28 PM

Wikipedia is good for casual information finding.

Anything more than that i'd go elsewhere as well and get a few different perspectives.

Nikked · 29-09-2008, 09:07 PM

Wikipidia is good, research is research, you don't trust one sorce, and you double check/cross referance info.

Wikipages can be locked, and the information usually edited buy more then one person, so some pages will be correct, others have flamboyant fan boy stories (alot of bands cop this)

GCFordChic · 29-09-2008, 09:23 PM

I like how Stephen Colbert puts it:

Quote:

I actually do think that Wikipedia is an amazing thing. It is the first place I go when I’m looking for knowledge, or when I want to create some.

If you're looking for a starting point, then its fairly good. I think of it more like a links page.
It really depends on the formality or importance of what you intend to use the information for.

**Peuty** · 30-09-2008, 10:26 AM

I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a moderated site. If someone added or edited a page without citing references, then it would alert moderators who would then deleted the unreferenced material.

I figure that as long as you are checking the references out as well, then the info will be fine.

FordFella · 30-09-2008, 10:28 AM

MMMMMMMMMMMMMM.. some info's decent but other is just really strange unusual and commonly wrong. I wouldn't trust my life or future car but if you don't have much idea it is a decent starting service.

fmc351 · 30-09-2008, 03:12 PM

This about sums it up...

http://valleywag.com/5050632/professor-wikipedia

**Peuty** · 30-09-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

This about sums it up...

http://valleywag.com/5050632/professor-wikipedia

Hehehehe.....

**cs123** · 30-09-2008, 03:27 PM

Some studies claim it's as accurate as other sources
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia...3-5997332.html

Riksta · 30-09-2008, 04:53 PM

I quite often get hooked for hours reading random stuff on Wikipedia.

For example, last night, after watching National Treasure 2 - I ended up on Wiki for an hour or so just reading about various bits and things mentioned in the movie. Thing is, I end up reading one article and opening a bunch of links to other articles in new tabs, so by the end of a particularly long article I could have six or seven tabs with other articles its linked to ready to read!

It can be vandalised quite easily, however most vandalism is reverted pretty damned quickly - there's people out there who monitor the "Recent changes" section, and revert pages if they get vandalised. Usually pages on contentious issues or people get locked and stay that way - for example, I don't think the page on George W Bush or Osama Bin Laden can be edited. And yes, if people do continually vandalise they will block the IP address of the editor, but any customer of an ISP who gives out dynamic IP's just has to reboot their modem/router to get a new IP and off they go again.

I generally tend not to edit or play around with it too much anymore, however if I spot the odd obvious spelling error I'll go in and correct it.