How many read wikipedia?

[Gnisy]

How many of you actually used Wikipedia as a "serious reference tool"? After what Brian Chase did to it, do you stand your ground?

[coyn]

Please explain Gnisy, I don't know who Brian Chase is.

[WaldoMcFroog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4520678.stm for the story.

Frankly, it's one incident after which they changed their policies. Tests have shown that inaccurate information tends to be very quickly redacted in most cases, but inevitably, any sort of open system like this is potentially open to abuse, but the benefits of the system outweigh the negatives.

It's a very useful resource but I doubt that many serious researchers would treat it as that good a source. It's fine for using on a website like this, but not something where your professional reputation is on the line.

[gary baldy]

Any good researcher will use a variety of sources to cross reference an item. Wikipedia always seems like a good source of 'off the wall' type of things and provides a good starting point to follow a lead - but as far as staking your reputation on its validity.....!?!?

[jno]

that's democracy for you: you open things up to the public and the public just wreck them. Broadly speaking, I use Wikipedia for uncontroversial topics, but with anything where there's likely to be any disagreement I'd use a wider range of resources. There is a huge amount of knowledge there, and though any of it could be malicious falsehood, in practice it won't be. After all, if anyone posts a lie, it's open to anyone else to correct it; and people do. It's pretty reliable, but as gary baldy says, you wouldn't stake your reputation on it. No serious researcher is likely to rely on one source anyway.

[Drusilla]

Hi Gnisy, I always trusted Wikipedia until I came across a question about King Edward II of England and encountered some very dubious information.
Now, I use it to give me a flavour of a subject and no more. I don't know the story of Brian Chase, so cannot comment on that particular incident.
Another one to watch out for is the film site, uk.imdb.com. I know for a fact some of their write ups are fantastical.

Hope you're well by the way and have a lovely Christmas.

[jake-the-peg]

People still read the Sunday Times and they published the "Hitler diaries!"

I'd imagine Wikipedia will likewise ride this out

[luckyboy]

I agree with waldo, wilkipedia is a open system of information which is rife for pranksters and others, anybody seriously using sites like this as a sole reference without checking deserve the ridicule they will get.

[jenstar]

And Gnisy is asking this question on The Answerbank? Oh, the irony...

[Gnisy]

Thanks to everyone for their much valued opinions, even Jenstar's =)

In short, Brian Chase wrote and posted a false article that implicated someone influential ( a friend of the Kennedy family ) in the Kennedy assassination incident. He did it as a joke to prank one of his working colleagues. This caused the person he wrote about to write an op-ed to USA Today questioning the credibility of Wikipedia and the people that contribute to it. When investigators traced the IP address to that of Brian Chase's employer, he stepped in to confess what he did and resigned from his job. Wikipedia made a few change to its policices because of the incident.

P.S. Hi Drusilla! I'm fine and well here. Hope you and your kids will have a wonderful Christmas this year!

Jenstar, since answerbank is a site for everyone to express their opinions, I can think of no better place to ask this question.

[jno]

interesting story here saying Wikipedia matches up well to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm