Wikipedia Accuracy

[MBuzzy]

So I recently HEARD of a study that looked at a random sample of Wikipedia articles and Encyclopedia articles and found that Wikipedia had ON AVERAGE less errors than the encyclopedia. First off, has anyone else heard of the paper or knows where it is located? I've searched the peer reviewed articles that I have available to me.

Next, what is your opinion on the accuracy of Wikipedia? They flat out say that the information may not be accurate....since of course, anyone can edit it. But in reality when you have the shared resources and intelligence of basically everyone with a computer....why shouldn't it be MORE accurate? It seems to me that Wikipedia should be the most accurate source around. Through thousands of iterations, eventually the information gets itself pretty good. Add on to that wikipedia's review and notation system and you have for a strong reference.

A lot of people use wikipedia as a reference around here and a lot of people then refute the accuracy, since it is wikipedia.

 

[terryl965]

It is a decent source for information, but I prefer to just get it from a fitfh grader you know they are the smarter ones.

 

[CoryKS]

My experience is that it's a really good source when it comes to incontrovertible facts such as, say, the workings of a internal combustion engine, but that the objectivity breaks down when the topic is political or religious. Some epic flame wars have arisen in the discussion areas.

 

[Tez3]

I think accuracy depends on which subject you are talking about. Accuracy in subjects such as science and provable facts I'm sure it's fine but and it's not Wikipedias fault here as it's common I think in all of historical studies, when it comes to history I think it lacks.
Take the discussions we have on here about the history of TKD, history is about peoples views and opinions as much as any thing else so history is never going to be an accurate subject. Yes you can say the Second World War started in 1939 and ended 1945 but what happened between those dates will be written differently by different people. people write up what happened from their point of view. Arguments rage still about Bomber Harris' raids on Germany, were they necessary or were they war crimes? Did the Japanese surrender before the atoms bombs were dropped on them?
Do you see where I'm coming from? checking 'facts' in history is difficult beyound the basics and perhaps noteven then!

 

[Tez3]

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

How 'accurate' is this or is it slanted from a particular point of view? I don't do TKD so would take it as face value and I'm sure the writer will have written this in good faith but?

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

this is easy as it provides provable facts and I can't see it being inaccutate though I guess there's a possiblity but I would says it's no more inaccurate than any other encyclopedia.

 

[Nolerama]

I think it's a great way to get started on an information search, then you can cross-reference with the key words provided in the Wiki article. There are some great leads in those articles.

From comparing a Wiki to other sources, one can determine what's considered correct information, and what's not. In my experience, I've found that Wikipedia is pretty reliable.

 

[arnisador]

I read about that study when it came out--it must have been over a year ago?

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Tez, your TKD example made me laugh.

Because I was gonna post it!

 

[Tez3]

I use Wikipedia quite often and as someone posted it's a good kick off to finding out other sources. It's just the history parts that I find difficult but then a lot of other sites/sources are too for the reasons I've stated.
I thought I'd use TKD as an example as we've had lots of arguments about it's history on here. I'd always read that TKD was a really old art etc and it wasn't till I came onto MT that I'd even heard the history questioned.
There's loads of historical 'facts' that have become accepted as such and are repeated in good faith but on examination have proved false. I suppose such things become folklore really.
compare these on the Charge of the Lght Brigade

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3944699.stm

http://www.pinetreeweb.com/13th-balaclava2.htm
and of course the poem
http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoem.do?poemId=1570

 

[MBuzzy]

I read about that study when it came out--it must have been over a year ago?

Do you remember where you saw the study? I am having a hard time finding it.

 

[MBuzzy]

So when someone references a wikipedia article...do you generally just take it as fact or take it with a grain of salt and use it to do more research?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well what exactly does Wikipedia say about Wikipedia

Lets see

 

[MBuzzy]

Wow, Xue...good thinking. I feel dumb.

I found this one that has some info about the studies....

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

 

[Tez3]

So when someone references a wikipedia article...do you generally just take it as fact or take it with a grain of salt and use it to do more research?

Depends on the subject, I have no scientific background at all so I find Wikipedia useful, it puts things in reasonable language I can follow. Most subjects I think are fairly written, perhaps if there's a fault it's that there's no enough information but it does lead on to other sources.
The history side I've already given my views but this of course isn't confined to Wikipedia, it's the same with ANY encyclopedia and/or history books.

 

[arnisador]

I read about it in the newspaper...I can't recall exactly when!

 

[Fiendlover]

So I recently HEARD of a study that looked at a random sample of Wikipedia articles and Encyclopedia articles and found that Wikipedia had ON AVERAGE less errors than the encyclopedia. First off, has anyone else heard of the paper or knows where it is located? I've searched the peer reviewed articles that I have available to me.

Next, what is your opinion on the accuracy of Wikipedia? They flat out say that the information may not be accurate....since of course, anyone can edit it. But in reality when you have the shared resources and intelligence of basically everyone with a computer....why shouldn't it be MORE accurate? It seems to me that Wikipedia should be the most accurate source around. Through thousands of iterations, eventually the information gets itself pretty good. Add on to that wikipedia's review and notation system and you have for a strong reference.

A lot of people use wikipedia as a reference around here and a lot of people then refute the accuracy, since it is wikipedia.

IMO I don't believe Wikipedia is acurate at all because like you said anyone can edit it. During my sophmore year in high school, my english teacher never allowed us to use Wikipedia at all for any references and this year my history teacher doesn't allow us to use it either. ive looked things up from it and found that some things weren't accurate at all. i can't think of an example from the top of my head but other sources including my history book in school had the accurate info.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I have found Wikipedia to be useful and generally accurate. Its a good way to quickly check on things you know but aren't sure of, and it is very strong is those areas where there is no real room for debate (technical data, indisputable dating, things like that). Where it gets iffy is in the same areas that any encyclopaedia suffers (subjective info, biographies, and the like).

As for the fear that because anyone can edit an article the information will become tainted, there are safeguards. You can't really change an article anonymously. Each edit is recorded in the articles edit history, so aggregious users will get punted.

The funny thing about Wikipedia is that you can tell when an article is written by an enthusiast or an academic. Enthusiast entries tend to have huge amounts of information most of which makes you stop and think, "I didn't know that, I wonder if its true." Academic entries tend to have lots of references and read like textbooks.

It is obvious that some organisations have someone to put up "official" information (look up the UK and US military for instance) which suggests that these organisations know people use Wiki and want information about themselves to be accurate. I have been scanning it at work for info on Sanskrit, and all that I have found is pretty good.

Wikipedia suffers from the same problem that all encyclopaedia do in that it can't compete with dedicated information sources. But unlike a hardcopy encyclopaedia, Wikipedia has room to expand.

 

[MBuzzy]

IMO I don't believe Wikipedia is acurate at all because like you said anyone can edit it. During my sophmore year in high school, my english teacher never allowed us to use Wikipedia at all for any references and this year my history teacher doesn't allow us to use it either. ive looked things up from it and found that some things weren't accurate at all. i can't think of an example from the top of my head but other sources including my history book in school had the accurate info.

I believe that a big part of the reason that high school teachers don't allow it is that using wikipedia does not add value in your education. One of the most important things that I learned in High school (before the internet is what it is) is HOW TO FIND THINGS. It is pretty easy now, but if you were allowed to use that as your only source, you would never know how to go look in books, peer reviewed journals, articles, etc. You have to think that the teacher's job is the educate you...not just on the facts, but how to find them. Four years of education in an engineering program and I remember or have used maybe 10% of the FACTS....but the simple process of how to learn, how to think, and how to FIND the answer is what I really got out of the experience.

Think of it this way....how accuracte is a textbook really? It is written by one organization, with a staff of experts. Those experts don't change from year to year. If they aren't up to snuff in their researching, how accurate is the book? There are no real checks and balances from the industry or the REAL experts...not just the person who wrote the book (I refer PRIMARILY to high school books...which are of a MUCH different nature than College and graduate books, which are most often WRITTEN by the experts). I have found MANY MANY errors in text books. The difference is....I can't fix it there. I can't even provide the necessary feedback - and if I did...who would care.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that if you DO find an error, it is your right to go and fix it. Providing a constant, ever evolving system of checks and balances. Especially with a subject like history, which is ALWAYS changing and evolving. History is not necessarily written in stone. It changes more often than you'd think.

Lastly....what year was your textbook written in? When I went to school, they were all AT LEAST 5 years old. The Average wikipedia entry CAN'T be more than 5 years old.

 

[MBuzzy]

As for the fear that because anyone can edit an article the information will become tainted, there are safeguards. You can't really change an article anonymously. Each edit is recorded in the articles edit history, so aggregious users will get punted.

Great point....There are more checks and balances there than people realize. The system of notices and notes on articles really amazes me. Wikipedia TELLS you when an article hasn't been reviewed or updated, or when it is only partial...or even when it is biased. And THOSE can be influenced by anyone. Don't agree? Go fix it! Great system.

 

[arnisador]

Wikipedia is a great place to start a research paper...it should give one clues for further research. But as a source? Ugh.