Yet another problem with Wikipedia

**Ringeck** · June 24, 2010, 02:27 AM

I found this linked to on a blog I read:
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html

It appears that a user, Jagged 85, for five years has been actively either distorting or falsifying history and philosophy articles on the wiki, with what appears to be an agenda.

The end of the RfC session, Jagged 85 promises to start cleaning up the "contributions" to the 8115 articles he's been messing around with, but according to this page:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Proble...lated_articles

little revision has been done, and he might even be back under a new flag.

This is pretty sad, and once again illustrates Wikipedia's glaring weakness: anyone with an agenda can penetrate its mechanisms and cause damage that will, in this case, not be repaired for a long, long time, in this case due to the user's long activity period and over 67000 contributions.

**~~Sensei Kiisu~~** · June 24, 2010, 05:29 PM

Heh, sucks to be anyone who used Wiki for homework purposes.

And I agree, I never take information from Wiki as serious until I've double checked it anymore, - there should be far greater security measures for editing, for example... all new edits should be reviewed and checked by a moderator. Only registered users should be allowed to edit... and official pages such as band, film, organisational etc, should only be editable by someone who represents it.

**cpdwane** · June 30, 2010, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Sensei Kiisu

...and official pages such as band, film, organisational etc, should only be editable by someone who represents it.

No, that's the whole point. If we let, for example, celebrities edit their own profiles, they are liable to lie about their information or falsify something which no one else can prove wrong. That's why people need to provide sources at all times.

To be honest, I've neve had any problems with using Wiki and it being innacurate, because I am mostly interested in Science articles such as animal species or obscure evolutionary theories. These are almost always reliable because they have been written by the only people dedicated enough to be interested in them- scientists, University Students and Scholars. It's the ones that are in the public interest that you must watch out for.

**Phier** · June 24, 2010, 05:42 PM

I've seen it in both wikis politics and climate change articles.

It is what it is.

**justicar5** · June 25, 2010, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

I've seen it in both wikis politics and climate change articles.

It is what it is.

seconded, only use Wiki to back up something you are pretty sure of yourself or something thats easily verifiable, using it to research obscure topics is risky at best.

**~~removeduser_4536284751384~~** · June 25, 2010, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by justicar5

seconded, only use Wiki to back up something you are pretty sure of yourself or something thats easily verifiable, using it to research obscure topics is risky at best.

no you can use it for whatever you want

just make sure each bit of the article has sources. If it does, it's probably reliable although that doesn't mean it's not worded in a biased way. If it doesn't, well use common sense.

**strategist.com** · June 24, 2010, 07:18 PM

So what is the most trusted online encyclopedia?

**Strelok** · June 24, 2010, 09:33 PM

Sort of unrelated to the distortion of truth. However, for the past week I have been fighting with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

"Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments."

Someone keeps adding "citation needed" to that statement. How does that need a citation" It might as well be:

"Also, the components of the oreo may be spread out over separate servings [citation needed]."

Anyway Wikipedia makes an honest attempt with their content standard and some of the "good guys" are hardcore on maintaining unbiased information. It's still a good encyclopedia but unfortunately **** like mentioned in this topic happens.

**Elfdude** · June 25, 2010, 08:34 PM

Wiki is good to give you direction, it is definitely not a final source or say on anything though. I thought everyone realized this? You can't just say all the information on wiki is unreliable considering the amount of very good information present by honest contributors but it'd be risky to base your opinions solely off of what you read on wiki.

**Saturn** · June 25, 2010, 08:38 PM

I never use Wikipedia. It's garbage. At the same time though, what doesn't have some kind of agenda these days?

**Space Wolves** · June 25, 2010, 08:45 PM

There is a reason wikipedia is usually labeled, DO NOT USE, by like most teachers that i've had. Thankfully this is another shining example. Regardless wiki needs a tighter control somehow :<

**Sun Devil** · June 25, 2010, 10:44 PM

Wiki is good for harldline facts like the area of a country or something, but I generally avoid it for anything controversial or that can be controversial. I think that high traffic pages like WWII or something similar are in general pretty good, because more wiki moderators pay attention to them.

**conon394** · June 29, 2010, 04:00 PM

This is pretty sad, and once again illustrates Wikipedia's glaring weakness: anyone with an agenda can penetrate its mechanisms and cause damage

Its a weakness I suppose but it seems to in reality the same weakness exists in the equivalent level 'traditional' reference and encyclopedia. Except there its the editors and lack of space that would provide distortion. In Genral there is no citation and a tendancy to opt for the safe or CW wisdom viewpoint even when the CW is untenable. I will allow that is basic facts like dates or such wiki is clearly a bit more vulnerable to manipulation that say the EB

**Hounf of Culan** · July 01, 2010, 05:57 PM

Meh only a tard would actually use the interpretations presented in the wikipedia articles themselves, I sometimes look at wiki articles just to find the sources and then go read those sources myself for some school projects and papers.

**cpdwane** · July 02, 2010, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Hounf of Culan

Meh only a tard would actually use the interpretations presented in the wikipedia articles themselves, I sometimes look at wiki articles just to find the sources and then go read those sources myself for some school projects and papers.

As I said, it depends upon the article, how well written it is and how well sourced it is. You are right though, the sources themselves are normally very useful in themselves.

**Hounf of Culan** · July 02, 2010, 12:32 PM

Perhaps it's restricted to the history related articles on wiki, as they're the only ones I use to get my sources from, but after reading the sources myself and then reading the wiki articles again I'm often left confused by the interpretations presented in the wiki article. It's very often difficult to find a connection between the tone and attitude of the sources listed and the tone and attitude of the wiki article itself. As if the wiki editor/s didn't even read the sources but just threw them up because they nominally have something to do with the subject. The most recent example that springs to mind is the wiki article/s on the contras and FSLN in 1980's Nicaragua. Many of the sources listed either take a markedly pro contra or pro sandinista stance, often due to the american authors conservative or liberal political leanings applied to a totally different country, but the wiki articles themselves have this kind of neutered tone that doesn't really portray any of the motivations behind either the contras or sandinistas, or does a rather piss poor job of trying to show the background and historical situation. If you want to write good papers you'll stay well clear of the actual wiki articles themselves.

**cpdwane** · July 02, 2010, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Hounf of Culan

Perhaps it's restricted to the history related articles on wiki, as they're the only ones I use to get my sources from, but after reading the sources myself and then reading the wiki articles again I'm often left confused by the interpretations presented in the wiki article. It's very often difficult to find a connection between the tone and attitude of the sources listed and the tone and attitude of the wiki article itself. As if the wiki editor/s didn't even read the sources but just threw them up because they nominally have something to do with the subject.

Well, were the sources cited during the article? Or were they just stuck on th end. If the latter is true then the article has not been properly written by the standards of wikipedia.

**Rolanbek** · July 14, 2010, 08:33 AM

The whole point of Wikipedia is that if you can contribute by fixing an article, you should do so. That is the point of collaborative efforts, the articles which are undeniably poor are normally as a result of creation and edits by a very small group of users, meaning few peer reviews of the material can occur. Poor or lack of research is another source of poor wiki articles, and articles with no references are normally marked as such. If you have any problems with an article and have to research an answer elsewhere, go back and edit the article making reference to the primary sources that you reviewed.

If you just went to another encyclopedia, you have to take it on faith that they have compiled and reviewed their work faultlessly because similar errors can occur, and while the quality of the contributor/editor is usually of professional quality, smaller writing groups mean less peer review.

Best thing to do your own research from as many primary resources as you can, then make you own mind up.

Moderation is useful to keep articles and areas clean, but moderation does not itself add content.

R