Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

The Register ^ | October 18, 2005 | Andrew Orlowski

[baseball_fan]

Encouraging signs from the Wikipedia project, where co-founder and überpedian Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work.

Criticism of the project from within the inner sanctum has been very rare so far, although fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer associated with the project, pleaded with the management to improve its content by befriending, and not alienating (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25), established sources of expertise. (i.e., people who know what they're talking about.)

Meanwhile, criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigor that's almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven't met a wiki-fiddler. For them, it's a religious crusade.

...snip...

Surprisingly, Wales agreed that the entries weren't up to snuff.

"The two examples he puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment. [sic] Bill Gates and Jane Fonda are nearly unreadable crap. Why? What can we do about it?" he asked (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/030075.html).

...snip

[baseball_fan]

finally out of denial

[decal]

As long as you stay out of the more politically-charged subjects, Wikipedia is pretty useful.

We'll see if they go beyond the acknowledgment stage.

[metmom]

Can't people just go into a Wikipedia article (or whatever they're called) any time they want and edit or post anything they want? Are there no controls over the content or accuracy of what you find there?

[Plutarch]

Well, to find out how good it is, we can check out the Wikipedia entry for Free Republic.

[decal]

"Can't people just go into a Wikipedia article (or whatever they're called) any time they want and edit or post anything they want?"

Sure, and so can those who post/edit after you.

So articles about Harriet Miers or Cindy Sheehan, for example, can't be trusted because they change hourly sometimes.

An article on, say, the Crimean War is mich more likely to be worthy of use.

[BigSkyFreeper]

You can edit anything you want, you can't post anything you want, like a biography of yourself. The founder said in a CSPAN Q&A episode that they typically yank articles that are posted by users about themselves, especially if there are no credible sources from which to verify the information from.

Long and short is, you can post anything you want, there are limitations.

[metmom]

So while Wikipedia is a good source for information, it's not really reliable then? It would be good to know should the kids decide to use it for school papers. It seems that it would be a good starting point for research because I've noticed that they have some very interesting articles on somewhat obscure subjects. I can't imagine wanting to read most people's autobiographies. Seems kind of egotistical to me. Let someone honor you by doing it for you. Thanks for the info.

[Killborn]

I use wiki to guide me to more citable and scholarly sources.

Don't let students use it as a source. It can be quite inaccurate and biased.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It's pretty reliable. I brought myself up to speed during the Terri Schiavo custody battle earlier this year using Wiki and it's sourced materials. Most of the stuff I quoted from was from Terri's own website, and I still got called a "Death Cultist" here on FR.

[counterpunch]

Most of the stuff I quoted from was from Terri's own website

There are plenty of brain dead bloggers out there... having a website is not definitive proof of consciousness.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Boortz says it best, paraphrasing for the occasion, 'don't believe anything you hear or read without verifying unless it comports with what you already know to be true'. And here is the bleeding edge (hole) of a too open mind, your brains will fall out your asshole if you believe everything. Be skeptical. Trust but verify.

[Wiz]

It's clear that it is controlled by liberals. That is even worse than anarchy.

[Plutarch]

It's clear that it is controlled by liberals.

I can see at a glance that my local newspaper is controlled by liberals. What is your evidence that Wikipedia is?

[RusIvan]

Here is the support of my words about Wikipedia which you both like to post refs from.
Wikipedia is edited by user versions of ereything icluding history. None may trust in it without checks.

SO goes to articles about Suvorov siege on Warsaw.

[RusIvan]

If in Wikipedia they say the year consists of 12 months, you surely won't believe. But I don't care what you believe. In your Russia you can believe even in the UFO! I do not care at all!==

Believe? I beleive ONLY an existence of God. Everything else: I know or I do not know.
Means I always doubt especially if someone tells me that he "believes". Hence I HAVE to check and recheck such beleiveings. In 90% of case there are always propaganda or just poor thinkings.

But I noticed that you would never ever doubt. You are self-righteous right?:)).
Remember the selfrighteousness is the indication of limited mind and fabricated knowledge.

[metmom]

ping