Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Wikipedia editing...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
I was watching the television and saw an interesting piece on Wikipeadia, particularly on how it has been abused and edited.

The George Bush article for instance has had to be locked due to people hijacking it and altering it to say all kinds of things that are not true or proven or fact. As well as using it as a means to abuse the President of the USA.

In many instances staffers of Senators and Congressmen have edited articles to say things that are not true. One congressmans article was edited to say he was a war hero, when infact he skipped out to Canada.

I myself went on Wikipedia and looked up Paris Hilton and in the open sentence it said;

"Paris Hilton is the famous heiress who is known for eating so much Semen, she actually has it running through her veins instead of blood."

Sadly it was removed from her article a few hours later.

Can such a site, though informative, be truly accepted or used to a benefit when everything on it is both questionable and biased? Or is it all biased? Is most of it actually accurate and true?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's great, the physics articles on there, (which I mainly use it for) are accurate :)

    ...I do check :p

    I couldn't care less about celebrity/politician bashing on there, because like I said, that's not what I use it for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would hardly call wikipedia a source for credible substantiation without being able to verify the source of the entries. It is essentially little more than another outlet for public debate painted to appear encyclopedic in nature.

    I would stick to verifiable research works with annotated source references.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    I was watching the television and saw an interesting piece on Wikipeadia, particularly on how it has been abused and edited.

    The George Bush article for instance has had to be locked due to people hijacking it and altering it to say all kinds of things that are not true or proven or fact. As well as using it as a means to abuse the President of the USA.

    In many instances staffers of Senators and Congressmen have edited articles to say things that are not true. One congressmans article was edited to say he was a war hero, when infact he skipped out to Canada.

    I myself went on Wikipedia and looked up Paris Hilton and in the open sentence it said;

    "Paris Hilton is the famous heiress who is known for eating so much Semen, she actually has it running through her veins instead of blood."

    Sadly it was removed from her article a few hours later.

    Can such a site, though informative, be truly accepted or used to a benefit when everything on it is both questionable and biased? Or is it all biased? Is most of it actually accurate and true?

    Someone has been watching The Gadget Show :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would hardly call wikipedia a source for credible substantiation without being able to verify the source of the entries. It is essentially little more than another outlet for public debate painted to appear encyclopedic in nature.

    I would stick to verifiable research works with annotated source references.

    It's not a definitive resource, but it is peer-reviewed and in most cases this leads to a good level of accuracy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For any writing to warrant the moniker of "peer reviewed" one must have verifiable reference to both the author and the reviewer(s). Without that essential reference the accuracy of its scant articles can hardly qualify as substantive reference for debate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Generally speaking Wikipedia can be trusted for non-political and religious articles.

    If you want to know about the habitat of the bald eagle, the life of Brunel or the technical specs of the starship Enterprise, Wikipedia is pretty reliable and in the case of popular culture (such as the aformentioned starship Enterprise) far more comprehensive than other online encyclopaedias such as Britannica or Encarta.

    When it comes to controversial issues, such as politics or current events, the free-for-all editing nature of Wikipedia is its biggest enemy.

    The article about the Madrid bombings in the Spanish language version, for instance, has had to be locked up because right wing cunts kept changing it to say ETA was behind it like the Popular Party is *still* ludicrously claiming.

    So it is advisable to double-check the data, especially when it concerns such issues, but for others you probably don't need to, and there are tons of interesting stuff.

    PS Those desperate enough to know what's going on in the TV series Lost can find out what happens in series 2 on Wikipedia's sister website, Lostpedia. It's full of spoliers though :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a Lostpedia? Cool.

    I really need to know what happens in that series since i didnt watch any of season 1 and probably wont watch any of season 2, yet everyone else knows about it. I hate to not know about things, which is why i bombard myself with information from interesting to trivial...Shame it means i forget more then most people will ever know. lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh, and yes, it was the Gadget show...but the Paris Hilton thing really did happen, spent a good hour laughing at that! :hyper:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Generally speaking Wikipedia can be trusted for non-political and religious articles.

    If you want to know about the habitat of the bald eagle, the life of Brunel or the technical specs of the starship Enterprise, Wikipedia is pretty reliable and in the case of popular culture (such as the aformentioned starship Enterprise) far more comprehensive than other online encyclopaedias such as Britannica or Encarta.

    When it comes to controversial issues, such as politics or current events, the free-for-all editing nature of Wikipedia is its biggest enemy.

    I think you've said it all really. Seems a very accurate analysis of wikipedia.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For once I agree with Aladdin - though I do have to wonder why anyone would want to look up the technical specs of the Enterprise :razz:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read on teletext once that said Wikipedia is as accurate as some major Encyclopedia, sure there may be a few odd things here or there that may be disputed but it's generally good.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    For once I agree with Aladdin - though I do have to wonder why anyone would want to look up the technical specs of the Enterprise :razz:
    A friend told me about it... honest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can even get biographies and stuff on fictional charachters as if they were real people! I love that!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Live Long and Prosper! ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    I read on teletext once that said Wikipedia is as accurate as some major Encyclopedia, sure there may be a few odd things here or there that may be disputed but it's generally good.

    The science journal Nature compared the accuracy of Wikipedia to that of Encyclopaedia Britannica.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/Nature_compares_Wikipedia_and_Britannica:
    The article in Nature's December 15 issue, "Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head," revealed the results of expert comparisons between Wikipedia and its major peer, Encyclopaedia Britannica. The study found that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries."

    Nature asked expert reviewers from varied disciplines to review 50 articles in each encyclopedia and evaluate them based solely on accuracy. Articles chosen for comparison involved identical subject matter and were of similar length. The result: 2.9 errors per article for Encyclopaedia Britannica versus 3.9 errors per article in Wikipedia.

    ETA: The free-for-editing nature of Wikipedia can be very frustrating at times. However, vandalism is reverted almost instantly on the vast majority of articles, as most articles are present in registered users' 'Watchlists'. I for instance have a hundred or so articles that I watch to keep an eye vandalism to revert. There are also thousands of people who watch the 'Recent Changes' list to spot vandalism and revert it quickly.
Sign In or Register to comment.