The Good And The Bad Of Wikipedia

The Online Encyclopedia Has Revolutionized Information Sharing, But There Are Downsides

(CBS) 
In fact a recent study by Nature magazine comparing the two found that among 42 science entries reviewed, "the difference in accuracy was not particularly great". Encyclopedia Britannica dismissed the study as fatally flawed, while Wikipedia just continued to grow.

"It showed people Wikipedia isn't rubbish," Wales said. "It's actually pretty good. It isn't perfect, but it's pretty good."

It became so popular that not long ago Comedy Central's Steven Colbert bestowed his critique.

"I'm going to log on to Wikipedia here and I am going to change it," he said on one of his shows. "You see, any user can change any entry. And if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true."

Because most anyone can edit most Wikipedia articles, mistakes can and do happen. Altschul searched herself on Wikipedia. Her name was spelled right, but her birthday was wrong. Much more serious errors have been found. Someone falsely implicated former Kennedy adviser John Seigenthaler, Sr. in the Kennedy assassinations.

"When I first read it, I scoffed for a few minutes. And then I was furious about it," he said.

When he contacted Wikipedia the entry was corrected in minutes. Seigenthaler wrote a blistering op-ed in USA Today warning of anonymous attacks.

"Since anybody without any knowledge can put anything on there it is flooded with bad information," Seigenthaler said. "I'm not the only person who has been hit like this."

Soon other hoaxers were replacing Seigenthaler's photo with pictures of Hitler and Lee Harvey Oswald.

"An awful lot of bad things have been said about me on Wikipedia in the last six, eight, ten months," Seigenthaler said.

Wikipedia's solution to vandalism is to lock an entry so no one can tamper with it. But Wales points out that vandalism is not that common. Only a fraction of 1 percent of all articles needs to be locked.

"The weaknesses are, yes, it's updated in real time," Wales said. "It's being edited constantly ... You need to have some consideration if you ... read something that seems a little crazy you should stop and think about it."

Quality control troubled Wikipedia co-founder Sanger. He quit and went on to help create Digital Universe where experts control content. Recently he has announced a new venture called Citizendium that will mirror Wikipedia but will also include expert oversight. While these projects are just starting up, Wikipedia is already in its fifth year of real growth.

"We have the opportunity to start creating, building new kinds of things and share information in new ways," Wales said.

More information is being shared like never before. Whether it's new technology like "Encyclopedia Britannica" delivered on cell phones, or Wikipedia, the promise of a whole new world of information is at our fingertips.

"It is absolutely revolutionary," Sanger said. "Scholarship, learning, is gonna change forever."

[cherri513]

I think Wikipedia is awesome, however, I feel that this resource like any other should be checked elsewhere.
I do agree that there are some who abuse it. I also feel that people are not going to waste their time adding false information. I think it is important to gather many sources and pick the best most pertinent material to what your research is.
Cherri513

[heresmy2cent]

Wikipedia is one of the most useful sites on the web. It's growth is well deserved.

[xxkarkeysxx]

Wikipedia is good when people don't abuse it. If you double-check the information somewhere, I believe that it would be just fine. I have used Wiki for many projects, but always followed it up with better research. I use wiki when in a hurry, but never just wiki. Just in case you know.

Best regards,
Keys

[rf35]

Yes, anyone can change anything; but if you don't know anything about a subject, why bother entering false information about it? I doubt many people would pass their free time finding random entries to mess up.

[oldende]

I think the whole idea of Wiki is great.

[oldende]

I think the whole idea of Wiki is great.

[sharncedar]

"That's the problem with Wiki, ANYONE can go change anything to anything they like"

One would expect it to be mostly nonsense then, but its not. It's mostly really interesting articles. I remember reading something about Indian culture and amazingly, it was written by someone actually interested in the topic and it was more alive, more real, than other sources.

Wikipedia is like asking your know-it-all friend about their area of interest - fascinating, more accessible, more informed, but sometimes not "official" and opinions can creep in. That is, opinions other than those of the third reich, the usual supsects who censor all text books in America.

[lwilli201]

When reserching anything on the internet, make sure you verify any info that you find. Wiki is a good start, but never depend on one source.

[djconklin]

"ANYONE can go change anything to anything they like, and the wrong information as well as libel or other alterations can stay up for days, weeks or even longer before anyone notices"

While anyone can enter "information" we also will know who did it.

Wki can be as good as you want it to be. Pick a subject and study it and fix Wiki. Don't sit on the sidelines and complain.

[lily_ayanami]

Wikipedia is a great if you just want a quick introduction or the gist of something. It also allows for articles not found in regular encyclopedias, typically things of a pop culture nature. However, as with anything one researches anything on the internet, one should check with at least a couple of other sites to verify the content.

[nothappyatall]

That's the problem with Wiki, ANYONE can go change anything to anything they like, and the wrong information as well as libel or other alterations can stay up for days, weeks or even longer before anyone notices, meanwhile Google picks up the cached pages and people copy the information.