The Problem with Wikipedia Today
For many Wikipedia is a great resource for free in-depth information on a wide range of topics. What many don’t know is that Wikipedia also has a darker side that is not well known to the average user.
This darker side of Wikipedia stems from the fact that the information provided comes from an open group of contributors, resulting in unreliable data lacking proper sources.
Many teachers today prohibit students from using Wikipedia as a source in reports and research due to the anonymity and possibility for unconfirmed (or even falsified) information.
Wikipedia has also been a target for vandalism by unscrupulous individuals and advertisers as a way to gain traffic and increased exposure, or even to discredit and defame competitors.
The other major problem is brought on by the fact that anyone can become an editor, and by contributing to the site even gain administrator status (granting the power to block and ban users as well as lock and remove pages).
Examples:
One such example is that of the Wikipedia bio of John Seigenthaler, Sr. (editor in chief of USA Today), in which falsified information was introduced and left unchanged for 4 months!
Another great example is that of the so called Wikipedia War on Gaming, in which articles involving traditional (and historical) gaming references and even classical games were defaced, locked, and even deleted in some cases.
Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia has even had problems in the past, including a short entry he created about a restaurant in South Africa that was put up for deletion because the restaurant wasn’t “notable” enough.
So the next time you find yourself on Wikipedia, remember that it can be a great resource of information, as long as you keep in mind that these are real human beings writing (and editing!) these articles (the elitist, arrogant, jealous, and spiteful creatures we are).
- Spread the Love:
About Author
Sean February 26th
Wikipedia is a great resource, I don't even know how many times it's popped up first in the SERP to answer whatever question I had. If you need to be sure, however, I suppose it pays to have access to a real encyclopedia. Anyone remember Encarta? I didn't think so. (hah)
mauris March 3rd
the problem is the students from today doesnt use the lexikon, they only use digital media to get informations
bibor March 13th
wikipedia almost know everything , so its a nice source when u need to know something fast.
Randy April 16th
i love wikipedia. ^^
Jim December 16th
I really do not like it because it is not authority. Uneducated, dumb and wanna be smart ass people are the ones who are giving their opinions only. I think that it is fine if you are AWARE that a lot of what you might be reading might not be true then, go ahead and read it. BUT if you are not aware of this you will be pulling in a bunch of false data. This is NOT good.
Jeff December 22nd
Interesting observation, I do use Wikipedia as reference but I can see your point. The same can be said of any website and its content though.
vargas January 23rd
yeah, but not just any website is set up to be an informational reference point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore there is an obligation to be dispassionate and accurate with the information it provides.
nosson March 5th
Why is the discussion page on Wikipedia a wiki. Shouldn’t it be like a regular discussion page where it cant be deleted by anyone who wants?
Eric P May 23rd
One problem with wikipedia is that the power of it’s content is with a few persons. Anyone can contribute but if there are different opinions then there is no good way to resolve whose opinion will be stated in wikipedia. The way it is now it’s not the educated opinion, it’s the popular opinion. Or rather, it’s the opinion of the loud few who wants to spread their word.
Rune November 12th
Having contributed to an article in the past and then seeing your contributions randomly edited, moved and deleted by various editors is quite counter productive.
Essentially there seems to be a couple of views on information in Wikipedia.
1) The strict Encyclopedia version where all information should be referenced, irrefutable and censored by the editors according to strict guidelines, templates and as mentioned above a public consensus that may be biased according to the editors cultural and country background.
2) The more open version where any useful information about a subject is included, unless obviously false of course. There really is no problem in including all potentially useful information, as long as the information is tagged according to reliability.
These strategies represent different people and views that are at odds with each oter. The first category place great value on a smaller but technically correct content – while the second category places more value on including the lesser known facts about a subject.
Personally I think the first category belongs in books, while the second is more suitable for research purposes – and that is certainly my number one reason for using Wikipedia at all.
Additionally some editors may in effect be hired to author/edit/delete information much like the current lobbying activities of commercial or political interests. There is no good way currently to confirm or resolve such “hidden agendas”.
Hula-Bula Goldenhorn Yoyo-Titty June 12th
Wikipedia has some accurate information, but many pages have become the subject of “Editing Wars” in which editors write something, then it gets deleted as it can’t be verified through an online link – then the deletion gets undone as the editor is angry over the deletion, and so on.
Wikipedia also has a very stark, old-fashioned appearance. The addition of Wikipedia’s “Creative Commons” licenses makes it well nigh impossible to add a photo to any article, due to red tape surrounding permissions of copyright and re-use of the images. For celebrities, this means that a nice-looking, hard working actor or musician might get their photo deleted, whereas Osama Bin Laden has a (poor quality) mugshot. This is largely due to supe-editor nerds with names like Hullabaloo Wildenstern III, who have Wiki awards on their user pages, and have somehow entered the upper hierarchy of the Wikipedia Hivemind. They just go around deleting things whenever they feel like it.
What with articles being deleted for lack of notability, and pictures being deleted without warning regardless of quality or how hard the editor worked to get permission, Wikipedia has become a shell of its former self and the very paragon of everything it claims not to be. Avoid it like the plague.
Add Yours
YOU