Why do people "slag off" Wikipedia?

[SurreyGuy]

I know that anybody can add info to Wikipedia, but I've always found it very informative and relatively error-free, so why do people regularly "slate" it?

[jno]

as most of it can be written or altered by anyone, it is open to abuse. They say any abuses are quickly removed. But this means it is never wholly reliable... nonetheless, it seems to me that it's as reliable as anything else in this world, and a lot more up to date than printed encyclopedias..

[Ethel]

I fink Wiki excellent, especially when there are reliable links to sources or further information

[jno]

for instance... there were a couple of threads last night asking what was wrong with Mel Smith, and some ABers quoted Wikipedia quoting Griff Rhys Jones as saying he had Parkinson's. Only Ethel queried when GRJ had said this. But by the time I looked the reference had been removed from Wikipedia, presumably until someone produced a cast-iron reference. It's still removed, though you can see it by clicking on 'history' on the Mel Smith page. Anyway, that's an example of when Wiki isn't necessarily 100% accurate. Anybody could have inserted the GRJ reference (which was added, then removed, yesterday).

[ACtheTROLL]

there are generally references and sources included so as long as it's not the only source or taken as gospel .... which of course no serious researcher would it's a good starting point

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

of course it's not a serious reference like Dr Seuss' world of knowledge - or an infallable source like encarta ....

[theprof]

Rightly or wrongly, since I've been on AB, I've not come across a professionally qualified scientist who treats Wikipedia with any authority. The reasons? Well it's exactly as jno said.

The truth is that once you allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to edit what's intended to be a reasonable authoritative resource for the public, all sorts of things happen. A while back, Wikipedia had to stop the article on George W Bush being editable because of the abuse and tripe that was posted. It hasn't been the only one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_va ndalized_pages

Once the damage has been done, Wikipedia has to rely on genuinely qualified and/or knowledgeable people to rewrite part or all the article to put it right. This can be happen in hours, weeks or months depending on when it's noticed, but the problem is that in the meantime someone else might be reading a load of tripe.

On the other hand, a review in the Daily Telegraph some months back put Wikipedia slightly ahead of the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica in terms of reliable knowledge, with I think, Encarta in third place, so it's not all bad.

(continued)

[theprof]

I recently answered a question on AB here:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Questio n675187.html

where I pointed out that the Wikipedia article on Verdigris was incorrect

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

No one seems to have picked up on to date, but it could seriously mislead someone with no other easily accessible resources to hand. Talk about a little bit of knowledge - perhaps I should join up and edit the topic myself!

In the meantime, I can only suggest that people should not take Wikipedia as Gospel truth and wherever possible, cross reference it's answers with other resources. As has been pointed out, serious researches look elsewhere.

[ACtheTROLL]

so prof
can I ask why you haven't rectified the inaccuracy ?
... surely that's the root problem and
100% the spirit of the principle

[theprof]

It's a good point. Yes, you're right, I could join the Wikipedia community and edit the article and I might well do so now that I've got a few days off university.

The problem is that the verdigris article is not the only one I've come across that's not correct. Where does it all stop? I've not got the time to go around editing the articles that I consider are not right. I've got a gut feeling that once someone starts down this road, it would soon become addictive and the quest for correctness would be unattainable.

As a biochemistry professor qualified in chemistry, the biological sciences and biochemistry, I've seen some dodgy articles in my own area of expertise in Wikipedia. Thankfully,most of these concern fairly obscure matters where I'd like to hope, researchers might sensibly be unwilling to take the word of Wikipedia verbatim.

Still, it's not all bad. One contributor on certain properties of amino acids decided to cite an article I'd written in a learned journal as a reference!

[123everton]

Remember last year someone posted on Wiki that Mike Batt (I think) wrote a song for S-Club7 when he had'nt, the press just reported it.
Wiki's good for a starting point but for me all research should be done with a book with an ISBN etc, there are several layers (libel and so on) of proof before a book can be published which to my mind makes them much more reliable.

[ACtheTROLL]

prof - a job for life? ;0

everton ... do you mean like the daily sport ... pictures and everything?

there is no such thing as fact ....I remember a book I read a few years ago ... all about how this bloke walked on water ... eye witless report ... signed testimonials and everything

"fact" is transient, new knowledge often disproves "fact"
and "hard" science verified by professional and qualified people ... (sorry prof) - but it's produced by human beings with human failings.
the oil industry, drug industry, tobacco, archaeology, mathematics, philosophy, computers .... all mainstream sciences have all many many many examples of mistakes, misconceptions and downright dishonesty
makes you wonder who you can trust

[123everton]

Well if you want to you can choose to suspend your belief in everything but that will not add much to the fonts of human knowledge or experience.
We all of us have to try and learn something and glean knowledge from somewhere, and I say that books are by far the best source for such things.

[theprof]

As far as the job is concerned forget it. I'm busy enough running a university department, working for defence research establishments, writing and editing books and journals and appearing on the telly now and then to keep me busty for the rest of my days. I'll leave Wikipedia to those with more time on their hands.

Fact is indeed transient. You only have to look at the books of Eric Von Daniken where so-called facts were combined with misconceptions to see it. All the same, there are many scientific "facts" that have stood the test of time. Much of what we know about gravity is one such example.

More often than not, today's scientific "facts" are based upon the sum of our knowledge to date. That is the best we can expect. Everything else is speculation. Nevertheless, as we gain more knowledge, scientific opinion and books are rewritten. This is the way it always has been, but they are not so much failings as misunderstandings based upon insufficient knowledge.

Just to give an example, I was clearing junk out of a room at home the other day and I found a wallchart called "metabolic pathways" which had been to school and university biology departments in the late sixties by a well known chemical supply company to illustrate the chemical reactions that occur inside a cell. For those with some knowledge of this type of thing, the chart looks like a very complicated version of the Citric Acid Cycle (Krebs Cycle)on an AO chart. I won't bore you with the details, but around 70% of the hundreds of reactions on the chart have been rewritten in some way since the chart was issued due to additional knowledge gained since that time.

[theprof]

busty? OMG try busy instead!

[ACtheTROLL]

lol prof - I doubt I'll close my eyes tonight!

everton
I know that some things have stood the test of time ...
on the contrary ... it's disbelief that drives knowledge not hinders it - belief is content to tolerate an explanation ... disbelief examineds it and looks for faults in the "logic"

believers conform to established thinking
sceptics push the boundaries and test them

[jno]

the prof, no need to join a community. Just click the 'edit this page' link at the top and correct anything that's wrong. You'll be asked to explain what you've done, though I'm not sure any Wiki official looks at these (otherwise how would abuses happen?), then just click ok and the page changes before your very eyes. I've often done this, though only when I absolutely know something is incorrect.

[SurreyGuy]

Good discussion - thanks all.

I had a feeling that a couple of inaccuracies would have occurred, but I've never personally noticed anything wrong (and use it quite a lot), so I'll not lose any sleep over it all.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL (albeit a day late!)

[Gormless]

What is Truth?

Truth is what you believe to be true, it doesn't matter if it is factual or not. Wikipedia looks professional and plausible, and no doubt has many more adherents than sceptics. Truth is what people write down with enough skill to persuade most other people that they are right.

Think on what Pilate said.