The world according to Wikipedia.....

[Tony*T3]

Many people turn to wikipedia these days for 'info' on subjects, but as its editable by just about anyone, I understand that some of it is 'made up' by people. Latest example of this that I have heard about was the late Ronnie Hazelhurst writing S Club Sevens hit 'Reach', such that it was quoted on various websites and has since had to be corrected.

As events unfold around the world, Wikipedia seems to get updated almost in real time, so I guess theres little checking of facts. In fact, with Google becoming the default source of all knowledge, these 'facts' are becoming harder to actually establish.

Are there many other known examples of Wikipedia disinformation?

Even Wikipedia has an entry for the subject:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation

[becca_]

Well of course. Caveat emptor or something... but the same is true of printed media, there's no guarantee that what's in a book or the papers is true either.

[grumbledoak]

Millions, dude.

E.g. Many of the entries on politicians are written by their own PR staff (i.e. lies). You can only trust it as a source for non-contentious info, and even then you should double-check.

The EB, it isn't.

[Nick P]

Tony*T3 said:

. Latest example of this that I have heard about was the late Ronnie Hazelhurst writing S Club Sevens hit 'Reach', such that it was quoted on various websites and has since had to be corrected.

its bollox that Ronnie Hazlehurst wrote it.

The truth is the lead singer of 'Starsailor' actually wrote it.

I dont use wikipedia at all because most of it is just opinion.

ETA his name is James Walsh

Edited by Nick P on Monday 15th October 15:39

[tinman0]

Wikipedia bashing seems to be one of those fashionable things at the moment.

Personally, I'm not going to get into it. I find Wikipedia incredibly interesting and i love reading up on things like planes (yes yes boring i know) and the history of various aircraft types, companies behind them, and the competitors etc, but its one of the best sites that bring together subjects like that in a comprehensive fashion.

[Nick P]

tinman0 said:

Wikipedia bashing seems to be one of those fashionable things at the moment.

Personally, I'm not going to get into it. I find Wikipedia incredibly interesting and i love reading up on things like planes (yes yes boring i know) and the history of various aircraft types, companies behind them, and the competitors etc, but its one of the best sites that bring together subjects like that in a comprehensive fashion.

but what if you are reading is wrong? (and a great % of it is) not very helpful then.

[ganglandboss]

Wikipedia articles are written in an academic style, ie. sources are referenced. You should be able to click on the link and check the sources to verify the article is correct. Some articles have warnings at the top of the page stating that a particular article doesn't cite it' sources.

When researching a subject on Wikipedia you should check the references and make sure you are in possession of the full facts. In that respect, it is like reading articles in the Daily Mail about PCSOs watching a boy drown!

[Strangely Brown]

Nick P said:

tinman0 said:

Wikipedia bashing seems to be one of those fashionable things at the moment.

Personally, I'm not going to get into it. I find Wikipedia incredibly interesting and i love reading up on things like planes (yes yes boring i know) and the history of various aircraft types, companies behind them, and the competitors etc, but its one of the best sites that bring together subjects like that in a comprehensive fashion.

but what if you are reading is wrong? (and a great % of it is) not very helpful then.

How do you know that anything you read isn't wrong? Wasn't there a comparison a while whereby WikiPedia was compared to EB on a number of scientific articles and EB had more errors? It doesn't matter what you read, you have no way of knowing how accurate it is unless you have some other means of verification.

[Tony*T3]

I was reffering to 'Disinformation', rather than 'Misinformation'. Stuff thats put there deliberatly as wrong, rather than stuff thats put there that just happens to be incorrect.

[Timberwolf]

Here's a thought, though.

Are the standards on Wikipedia better, worse, or about equal to your typical tabloid "news" source?

(I came up with this the other day, reading something on the BBC, and thinking, "If this was Wikipedia it would have a 'the accuracy of this article is compromised by the use of weasel words' warning tag.)

[Fetchez la vache]

Wikipedia carries on a age long tradition of US movie studios rewriting history

[BigBen]

Michael Scott said:

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.

[Nick P]

Strangely Brown said:

Nick P said:

tinman0 said:

Wikipedia bashing seems to be one of those fashionable things at the moment.

Personally, I'm not going to get into it. I find Wikipedia incredibly interesting and i love reading up on things like planes (yes yes boring i know) and the history of various aircraft types, companies behind them, and the competitors etc, but its one of the best sites that bring together subjects like that in a comprehensive fashion.

but what if you are reading is wrong? (and a great % of it is) not very helpful then.

How do you know that anything you read isn't wrong? Wasn't there a comparison a while whereby WikiPedia was compared to EB on a number of scientific articles and EB had more errors? It doesn't matter what you read, you have no way of knowing how accurate it is unless you have some other means of verification.

oh now you have gone and done it.

I'm never going to be able to sleep after consulting the Oxford English dictionary whilst playing the wife at Scrabble.

My trust in literature has totally gone.

[tinman0]

Wikipedia was attacked by EB deliberately. EB are losing sales, in fact, a whole sales model to Wiki, so they went on a PR defensive and called Wiki inaccurate.

No one really questioned Wiki until a commercial company got involved and slagged them off. I'll give EB this - they were very success in the damage they did to Wiki.

So if you want to be misled in a big way, look at the PR dept for EB first.

[anonymous-user]

Nick P said:

tinman0 said:

Wikipedia bashing seems to be one of those fashionable things at the moment.

Personally, I'm not going to get into it. I find Wikipedia incredibly interesting and i love reading up on things like planes (yes yes boring i know) and the history of various aircraft types, companies behind them, and the competitors etc, but its one of the best sites that bring together subjects like that in a comprehensive fashion.

but what if you are reading is wrong? (and a great % of it is) not very helpful then.

I see your point Nick, but the wiki plane stuff is written by spotters who take a huge amount of pride in the useless information they have accumulated. If someone posts something wrong about aircraft you can be sure it would be corrected in seconds.

You see it everytime planes are mentioned here. People are feeverishly typing away pages of click and paste facts from wiki or some such site.

[Nick P]

stovey said:

Nick P said:

tinman0 said:

Wikipedia bashing seems to be one of those fashionable things at the moment.

Personally, I'm not going to get into it. I find Wikipedia incredibly interesting and i love reading up on things like planes (yes yes boring i know) and the history of various aircraft types, companies behind them, and the competitors etc, but its one of the best sites that bring together subjects like that in a comprehensive fashion.

but what if you are reading is wrong? (and a great % of it is) not very helpful then.

I see your point Nick, but the wiki plane stuff is written by spotters who take a huge amount of pride in the useless information they have accumulated. If someone posts something wrong about aircraft you can be sure it would be corrected in seconds.

You see it everytime planes are mentioned here. People are feeverishly typing away pages of click and paste facts from wiki or some such site.

yeah, true. sad eh?

[Tony*T3]

seems Wiki has its own page on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia#...


Just not sure if its true or not....

[Puggit]

Some famous examples of wiki-editing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/695753...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/694915...

[Ecks Ridgehead]

Timberwolf said:

Here's a thought, though.

Are the standards on Wikipedia better, worse, or about equal to your typical tabloid "news" source?

(I came up with this the other day, reading something on the BBC, and thinking, "If this was Wikipedia it would have a 'the accuracy of this article is compromised by the use of weasel words' warning tag.)

Remember the shark spotted off Cornish coast "story" that The Sun ran this summer? Turns out it was all just a load of rubbish.

The difference between the media and Wikipedia is that if Wikipedia is dead wrong then at least someone will eventually change it...

Edited by Ecks Ridgehead on Monday 15th October 16:28

[Strangely Brown]

Nick P said:

Strangely Brown said:

It doesn't matter what you read, you have no way of knowing how accurate it is unless you have some other means of verification.

oh now you have gone and done it.

I'm never going to be able to sleep after consulting the Oxford English dictionary whilst playing the wife at Scrabble.

I'm not surprised. If you're playing Scrabble you should be using Chambers.


Edit to correct smiley

Edited by Strangely Brown on Monday 15th October 17:30