patrick.net

I've been using Wikipedia daily since 2006 or so and have not run into any such inaccuracy that I could identify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War is locked down to anonymous editing and there's a couple of things in there I think are overstatements or violate NPOV that I would qualify or reword.

One example is the article on FSB Ripcord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Fire_Support_Base_Ripcord&action=historysubmit&diff=354701438&oldid=351177506

The original author made this unqualified assertion:

"NVA losses at Ripcord delayed the Easter Offensive by a full year."

but actually in reading the cite given I saw that the author was just repeating another author's POV, which is still POV.

And it turned out that this POV is from one of the commanding officers of the FSB Ripcord action, so not exactly a neutral POV to begin with. I edited the article to more fully qualify where the assertion was coming from.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia.html

A (very serious) story about a mormon battling for mormon truth on wikipedia. It should be noted that the Deseret News is owned by the mormon church and that just about every mormon I've ever met believes that their ever-changing religion is the right one - and that the rest of the world is full of sinners waiting to take them down.

I've found a few errors on minor topics I knew something about. But the beauty of Wikipedia is that I could address them myself.

Thats the one problem with Wiki, what you read often depends on the opinion of the last person who edited the article. :-)

There are editors who try to keep things on track, and apparently studies have shown that Wiki is as accurate on most subjects any any of the printed dictionaries, though I can't recall exactly where I read about the studies.

I write and edit articles on Wikipedia and have learned a lot seeing the process of articles started expanded and improved. Overall, I am more impressed with the quality of most articles on it than I was 2 years ago.

Wikipedia is a great starting place if you are looking for general information. If you want to do serious research, you still need to seek out the primary reference (source) material.

The thing I find funny about Wikipedia is how little personal advertisements are snippeted into articles. For example, a cogent summary article about the war of 1812 may suddenly be derailed by a off-topic statement about how Dr. JoeBlow from Bozo State University resolved a critical question on beaver pelt trading between 1813 and 1818. Clearly this kind of editing is a plug for JoeBlow's research program and not really an improvement to the article. Would be nice if this stuff was better contextualized or edited out.

@ terriDeaner

Are you talking about the article itself, or the discussion on the "non-visible" side of Wikipedia?

American in Japan says

@ terriDeaner
Are you talking about the article itself, or the discussion on the “non-visible” side of Wikipedia?

The articles themselves. I'm too lazy tonight to pull up examples, but I can post some in the near future if you'd like.

terriDeaner says

American in Japan says

@ terriDeaner
Are you talking about the article itself, or the discussion on the “non-visible” side of Wikipedia?

The articles themselves. I’m too lazy tonight to pull up examples, but I can post some in the near future if you’d like.

Sounds interesting - I'd like to see a sample.

Sorry... still being lazy... here's one example:

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

Take a look at the article tab. Scroll down to the cast of characters where they describe "Red" and look at the statement that has a [citation needed] superscript. Looks to me like a plug for some tired old VJ from the 80's (edit - looks like I was wrong about the era... I clicked on his wiki and apparently he's some pseudo-celebrity clown who's currently looking for work). Does it really add to the record, or is it just a cheap advertisement?

The Featured Articles, Star Articles and even "Good Articles" are of high quality and are more accurate.

Also check out how well referenced the article is.

@ terriDeaner

>The articles themselves. I’m too lazy tonight to pull up examples, but I can post some in the near future if you’d like.

Thanks, I look forward to seeing them!

Thanks AiJ, good information. Didn't know that there was a stratification of the wiki articles according to quality. Could you fill me in on how quality is assessed for the categories you've listed?

Well referenced articles (Australia) and (Lion).

Over 300 references given at the bottom:

+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

Over 200 references given at the bottom:

+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

This one isn't referenced but there is a label indicating so on the header of the article :

+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_hose

This one may be accurate but has no references, so read with caution:

+ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milko_(Swedish_cooperative)]

Wiki Gets a Pass until the same people Bitching about them, addresses the "Fractured Fairy Tales" that the Discovery, Nat Geo, and the History networks broadcast every single day of the week. Revised history, at its best.

I think it bends people out of shape, when they can't control or dictate the flow of Information. So there for WIKI is inaccurate, because the content can't be cleansed and revised to suit those that would prefer otherwise. Meanwhile turn on the Television, and tune into our learning channels if you really want inaccuracy.

American in Japan says

Well referenced articles (Australia) and (Lion).
Over 300 references given at the bottom:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
Over 200 references given at the bottom:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion
This one isn’t referenced but there is a label indicating so on the header of the article :
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_hose
This one may be accurate but has no references, so read with caution:
+ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milko_(Swedish_cooperative)]

Thanks for the examples AiJ. From the above response, I was still not clear on exactly how Wikipedia officially categorized their articles according to quality. So I went to the Wikipedia website and looked for 'Feature' articles. I took a look at some random 'Feature'/'Star' articles, and much like your examples, they were well organized and referenced. Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, even though they are the best articles, they only comprise 3183 of 3,558,190 total Wikipedia articles (LESS THAN 0.1% of all Wikipedia articles). It would be much better if all Wikipedia articles were reviewed and vetted to the "Featured" standard.

Although the current academic publishing/peer review system is far from perfect, most reputable publications (primary journals, reviews, textbooks, etc.) REQUIRE exhaustive citations, reporting of source material, and some degree of genuine evaluation by field experts. Yes, some poor quality material and outright fabrications slip through. That said, given the nature of the peer review process this kind of stuff usually comes to light eventually. Thus, both academic peer review and Wikipedia both benefit from active, critical evaluation of the information(screened or not) that is put into the public domain.

One more thing, related to my original comment: Wikipedia still suffers from a glut of sneak advertisements. Your 'Lion' article offers another example:

"Kevin Richardson is an animal behaviorist who works with the native big cats of Africa. He currently works in a special facility called the Kingdom of the White Lion in Broederstroom[52] which is 50 miles form Johannesburg.[53] The site was built with the help of Rodney Fuhr[54] and was made for the movie set of White Lion: Home is a Journey.[53] He has 39 white lions on-site[52] and works diligently to protect and preserve the white lion species. While the park is currently a private property, there are plans to open it to the public soon.[55]"

Does this really add to the article, or advertise for their white lion theme park?

By the way, AiJ, do you work for Wikipedia or work actively as an editor? Just curious.

Tenouncetrout says

Wiki Gets a Pass until the same people Bitching about them, addresses the “Fractured Fairy Tales” that the Discovery, Nat Geo, and the History networks broadcast every single day of the week. Revised history, at its best.
I think it bends people out of shape, when they can’t control or dictate the flow of Information. So there for WIKI is inaccurate, because the content can’t be cleansed and revised to suit those that would prefer otherwise. Meanwhile turn on the Television, and tune into our learning channels if you really want inaccuracy.

It is late and I'm tired, so I will be brief:

Tenounce, if you don't like the garbage TV or the internet is spewing at you here's a simple solution: turn them off and go do some real research. For example, I strongly encourage you to visit your local public library and feast on the wide range of genuinely useful information available to you - courtesy of your community of taxpayers. There you can control the flow of information to your utmost satisfaction.

Well, I tried to be brief. For the record, I LIKE Wikipedia. I also have no illusions about how information flows from sources to sinks, how corrupted it may become, and how little control I have over that. I simply don't believe everything I read.

BTW two relevant articles on Wikipedia...take a look!

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

This one has an edit battle going on and a neutrality dispute:

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

from it I quote:
"Americans' love of their homes is widely known and acknowledged;[36] however, many believe that enthusiasm for home ownership is currently high even by American standards, calling the real estate market "frothy",[37] "speculative madness",[38] and a "mania".[39] Many observers have commented on this phenomenon[40][41][42]—as evidenced by the cover of the June 13, 2005 issue of Time Magazine[36] (itself taken as a sign of the bubble's peak[43])—but as a 2007 article in Forbes warns, "to realize that America's mania for home-buying is out of all proportion to sober reality, one needs to look no further than the current subprime lending mess... As interest rates—and mortgage payments—have started to climb, many of these new owners are having difficulty making ends meet... Those borrowers are much worse off than before they bought."

@terriDeaner

Just one of the thousands of editors out there (all volunteer).

Much bigger than others...
From Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia currently has 3,560,966 articles in total in the English version alone. (This article count is also available on the main page.) the Encyclopædia Britannica had about 85,000 articles with 55 million words in total, and Microsoft's Encarta had about 63,000 articles and 40 million words in total."

Bigger isn't always better, but a fair comparison for accuracy would be with head-to-head articles instead of taking some of Wikipedia's fringe articles.

That was done in 2005 in a study commissioned by Nature magazine:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Be sure to read the rebuttal by Britannica, and the subsequent responses by Nature.

They concluded that Wiki came pretty close to Encyclopedia Britannica, based on 42 articles compared between the two sources. Some key problems with the analysis:

1. Huge bias towards type II error (failure to find a difference between the two encyclopedias even though one exists) due to serious undersampling: they compared only 42 articles out of a possible 85,000 (from your estimate), which is 0.05% of all possible sample comparisons. This was not brought up in the Britannica rebuttal, but is a big problem in my opinion.

2. Nature never double-checked the factual content of their reviews, Nature claims in one of their rebuttals that they blindly gave Wiki and Britannica articles to reviewers, so any errors should balance out. Not true if their small set of reviewers is biased for or against one of the sources. For example, consider if all of the reviewers were unknowingly also Wiki editors, or if their research had been used by others to write the Wiki articles. In this extreme case, there would be a strong systematic bias against Britannica.

3. Nature and Britannica are, at heart, both publishing companies. Nature sells magazines based on controversy (Britannica = Wiki), Britannica sells encyclopedias based on quality (Britannica > Wiki). Both have incentive to spin the study results in their favor, so who should you believe?(hint... always consult the primary references)

By the way, I didn't think my examples were from fringe articles. 'Fraggle Rock' was a internationally popular show from the 1980's, and 'Lion' was a gold star article that you posted.

@terriDeaner

Thanks for the study, this is a good one! Some comparisons have just taken any article at random from each which I felt isn't fair.
(My definition of "fringe article" might be too loose. My definition was just any articles that wouldn't even be on Encyclopedia Britannica. I should have written that more clearly to avoid confusion. Certainly "Lion" isn't a fringe article. I wonder if "Fraggle Rock" is...Lol!)

You're welcome. I checked Britannica online, and although there was no separate entry for 'Fraggle Rock' there was an entry for its creator, Jim Henson.

At any rate, part of why I do like Wikipedia is because there is at least a little bit of information on just about any subject. The devil is always in the details though.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Though you can't beat Wiki's convenience if you're sitting at a computer.

I still want to get my daughter a set of physical Encyclopedias. I recall hours spent leafing through them... I understand Britannica is stopping the print version?

>I still want to get my daughter a set of physical Encyclopedias.

I agree.

>I understand Britannica is stopping the print version?

Not sure...could be.

kentm says

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Though you can’t beat Wiki’s convenience if you’re sitting at a computer.
I still want to get my daughter a set of physical Encyclopedias. I recall hours spent leafing through them… I understand Britannica is stopping the print version?

Note that this article references the material from the commissioned Nature article cited above. My point again: read past the headline, and look at the source material.

By the way, I LOVE print encyclopedias.

Tenouncetrout says

Revised history, at its best.

history is always written by the winners.

At least in the zoology section, some editor will slap tags on the article in a day or two (if not.within hours) if something is not referenced or is even slightly inaccurate…

Any other errors found?

American in Japan says

Any other errors found?

Last time I looked, the letter 'Q' was replaced with the number 4, but it didn't really affect the readability that much so I don't think anyone has complained yet...

In this case be careful of using only Wikipedia:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/11/dont-use-wikipedia-for-drug-information.html

C'mon now AiJ... a little slow on the draw here...

Ironcially, wikipedia is self-aware:

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

there's a section on "Comparative studies" that you'll probably find interesting

Thanks for the link!

Wikipedia is good for anything non-controversial. When you get into something where people strong disagree, the wikipedia admins (usually high school/college kids with too much time on their hands) dominate the articles and systematically control who's edit stays and whos doesn't.

The articles I read / edit are dominated by graduate students, but I agree some came push their views a bit (at least for formatting).

There are some stubborn Administrators on Wikipedia that make their opinion known.

American in Japan says

There are some stubborn Administrators on Wikipedia that make their opinion known.

The whole thing is sold as some egalitarian open process. In reality, Wikipedia has a ridiculous number of rules, is highly highly regulated, and the whole process is political and dictated by a small group of people. Their marketing is awesome!

Still there is lots of great information on animals, languages, astronomy, chemistry, math and country infomation. I agree that a small group of people with lots of time on their hands have undue influence. I am cautious when reading the articles on companies.

Did anyone else find any inaccurate articles?

Wikipedia whitewashes history. You should never use any Wikipedia article that deals directly or indirectly with people, money, politics, religion, culture, companies, products, or history.

Also, don't quote Wikipedia. It makes you look like an idiot. Only idiots and the intellectually lazy resort to encyclopedias. Remember when you were in elementary school and the teacher told you not to use the encyclopedia and go to the library instead? Only super-idiots trust encyclopedias without peer review. The fact that the dumbest 80% of America uses Wikipedia, doesn't make you look better for quoting it.

Do real research instead. It's not much harder and you get far better results. Check out my previous rants on Wikicrapia for more details.

Dan8267,

Good point. I write and edit articles on Wikipedia, so I am particularly concerned with referencing. I missed the "Wikicrapia" post...I'll try to find it.

FortWayne says

Tenouncetrout says

Revised history, at its best.

history is always written by the winners.

Quality Auto Repair Since 1979

You mean whiners?