Reliability of Wikipedia - General

Wouldn't a textbook be a collaboration of various sources to create one big book? That is what Wikipedia would be, a collaboration of various sources for one particular subject.

[QUOTE=Zemog;21350248]:haw: [/B][/QUOTE] lol, it was fixed like 10 minutes later though. interesting how quick some things can be fixed on wiki

[QUOTE=Zemog;21350248]:haw: [/B][/QUOTE] I saw that and I'm like... what? Is this a gimmick page?

[quote]The reliability of Wikipedia, compared to both other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in several ways, including statistically, by comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is open to douches and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how hipsters or coffee critics are present. An early study conducted by IBM researchers conducted in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "douchebags are everywhere, and need to be avoided at all costs"[1] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective douche-zapping capabilities".[2] An investigation reported in the journal Nature in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[3] These claims have been disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[4][/quote] sup

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21349639]I'm not saying I read in a wikipedia article "I wrote this neutrally" and therefore I agree with it. I'm saying I have read the major sources from which some articles are comprised of and many sources from outside of the articles and, in my opinion, the articles sums up the subject(s) very impartially in comparison to many of the sources I viewed. This is only a few instances though that I am talking about. I can't in anyway comment on every article on the site.[/QUOTE] Yes, Wikipedia does indeed provide some good summaries about subjects, better than ones written by individuals in most cases. But whereas the omission of certain things in articles written entirely by individuals seems to be a completely conscious choice, it's the contrary for Wikipedia. A person who knows about a subject enough to write a summary about it probably just deems the things unimportant, and that's obvious bias - emphasis on obvious. However when that article is then edited by many more people - perhaps by people who do not know about the subject that much, but can still contribute to it - the bias seems to disappear, it becomes neutral. But the omissions may remain, due to actual lack of information or just the general unwillingness to add it, which I mentioned earlier, and that's bias that's difficult to notice. And it's a democracy; minority opinions will suffocate under the general tone of the article, which may still be very much biased. Perhaps an example would be good. The current Wikipedia articles about Cicero speak of him very highly, because he has always been considered a good man for the past two thousand years. He is almost extraordinary, he's been inhumanised. And all the facts that would make it not so are downplayed or not mentioned at all (real argumentation procured by request, since it'd be worth its own thread). Bias isn't always even bad. I think it's more interesting to read a text when its author has a real opinion that he wishes to convey. And it does give some insight into the various viewpoints one can have about the subject. I mean, if the writer knows what they're doing, they should be able to present their view at least somewhat convincingly.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;21352036]Perhaps an example would be good. [/QUOTE] Any of the articles about palaeontological debate are what I was looking at. They seem very fair in my opinion.

I was reading the article and I noticed a pattern; [IMG]http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s52/hemblahem/poo-1.png[/IMG]

OP, don't you have a term paper to write.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;21347053][quote] Cultural practices In some cultures, semen is attributed with special properties of masculinity. Several tribes of Papua New Guinea, including the Sambia and the Etoro, believe that semen provides sexual maturation among the younger men of their tribe. To them, sperm possesses the manly nature of the tribal elders, and in order to pass down their authority and powers, younger men of their next generation must fellate their elders and ingest their semen. This custom commences among prepubescent males and postpubescents.[45] This act may also be attributed to the culturally active homosexuality throughout these and other tribes.[46][/quote] what[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=157878&dateline=1270170414[/img]

[QUOTE=Downsider;21332041]My History teacher's been bitching about how unreliable Wikipedia is. She says that anyone can change anything, and thus most of the information you'll find is usually false. However, I've argued that because of how popular Wikipedia is, and how much of the "iffy" information is cited on the bottom of the page, it has an effect to the point where it'll heal itself within an extremely quick amount of time. She argues that the Encyclopedia Britannica is [I]far[/I] more accurate, but I think it's logical to argue that the amount of mistakes in the Encyclopedia Britannica can be similar to that of Wikipedia, simply because of the time it takes for the false information to be removed being extremely short, and the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have the ability to modify, add, remove articles by more intelligent people. What're your thoughts?[/QUOTE] Wikipedia is normally accurate. The obvious mistakes are spotted by knights in shining armour who correct them.

my teachers do that too...

[QUOTE=Zemog;21352403]I was reading the article and I noticed a pattern; [IMG]http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s52/hemblahem/poo-1.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I've seen a case of vandalism starting from a thread on /b/ through an article filled with DEAD RUSSIAN to the reverting of said vandalism. It wasn't even a particularly notable article. The whole thing lasted about 15 seconds.

i wouldn't trust anything wikipedia says too much, same goes for the rest of the internet too

Much of the vandalism on wikipedia is reverted in seconds by bots like ClueBot.