My editor recently questioned whether I should source my blog posts with links to Wikipedia, the community-built online encyclopedia. It’s a good question, a fair question, and one that many newsrooms are grappling with to some extent. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, with more than 1 million entries in English on an array of topics — with versions in dozens of other languages. The mind-boggling aspect of Wikipedia is that it uses the collective knowledge of its public contributors and editors, none of whom is paid. And when vandals or other history-revisionists strike, those same editors are tasked with keeping things in the “neutral point of view.” But still, the quality of Wikipedia varies from entry to entry, so I told my editor I would link to it when the entry did a good job defining a technical term. The counter-argument is that no information source is totally trustworthy and unbiased.
What do you think about Wikipedia? Do you trust it as a source for neutral information? Should journalists and bloggers link to it to back up their stories or opinions?
View Comments (30)
I found this blog post later. Your later blog post, about NPOV and George W. Bush, was genius, and answered your own question!
If Wikipedia is not a valid source then doesn't that put the rest of the internet into question? And what about the newspaper? What makes that any different from Wikipedia? At my school, Wikipedia is outlawed and blocked from the school servers. Students have petitioned and argued but the school refuses to allow Wikipedia for anything. I believe it is incorrect to stereotype Wiki. I also believe it is impossible to create a valid source. If you throw Wiki into a question, then you are saying, in basic, that all sources are subject to biase and, therefore, invalid.
Articles relating to science and obscure minutiae that only an expert would now like quantum mechanics generally are written by people who know it - an expert and thus sometimes correct. However, you're never sure if it was rewritten by someone who did not know the subject that well - and never are sure if it is totally accurate. I have a medical background and I can tell you this... most medical articles have some element of truth and some element of false information...controversial subjects like homeopathic medicine are entirely wrong and written by people selling products.
However, if you go on wikipedia to any other article that relates to history (as my historian friend who is a professor will tell you...) most articles are terribly biased and wrong. Any article relating to history from the invention of the steam engine or invention of calculus to any single war (especially foreign wars between foreign countries) that the general public has an interest in will have an element of untruthfulness and bias to it. Articles relating to foreign countries (especially India and the Middle East) and cultures will have been massively edited by people in those countries in a biased and incorrect manner.... Articles relating to sports figures and sports history or any biography that you name will be riddled with bias and errors... And then you get obscure articles on random stuff written by one person on the web - do you trust it as a source? How do you know that the person wrote the correct information? I read an article on an african lake in the middle of africa that said that the lake (about 1 square mile) has sharks and alligators living in it ... That's impossible! I don't even know if the lake existed as I can't find it on any tourist information website.
Thus, reading and trusting wikipedia is like having a stranger come up to you and randomly in NY city, tell you a factoid in a straight face.... and then run off. You never know if the stranger told you the truth or if he was a nut. And the only way you will ever know is if you knew about the subject... which would destroy the need to look up the subject.
Interesting discussion.
I advise my students to look suspiciously on Wikipedia and consider each and every bit on info they find there to be untrue, unless they can find a good reason to believe.
However, I do believe that whether much of Wikipedia is true or not is not important for the majority of people using the Internet.
I teach 11-18 year olds in the UK, and most of them will believe whatever they find on the internet without hesitation. They take decisions, communicate and interact with others on the basis of false information all the time, and it seems to make no difference to them or their lives at all.
Indeed, while in the virtual world in which most of them exist for much of the day (every day), true/false is not a relevant concept. When they step back into the real world they cannot tell the difference.
As a male in my forties I am starting to realise that "truth" as a societal value means very little to many young people now.
It therefore matters little whether Wikipedia is accurate or not.
Visit "uncyclopedia" if you dont believe me.
Be good.
Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, 'Jimbo's second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter 'Scientific Discovery'. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with 'Jimbo' and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to 'Jimbo's' opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland
I notice that Dr. Hill has spammed over 20 blogs with this comment, but I figured that I should respond anyway. :)
For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case. While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity, Wikipedia's neutrality and impartiality is very important.
I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted was because we didn't believe that the organisation was notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This was done through articles for deletion - I will let the reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a deletion review process.
Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest Though it isn't prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.
Personally, I don't believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with organisations and individuals.
Chris Sherlock
User:Ta bu shi da yu
English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)
I would just like to post a personal experience here : i tried to edit a wikipedia article about the A-50 aircraft (Russian AWACS aircraft); the article was telling someting about the "counter-terrorist" operations in Chechnya... It is pretty obvious that no "terrorists" are implied in the Chechnya thing, since they're just people who want their country to be recognized and to be independent... Well this article was edited again each time i tried to present Chechen as "combattants" instead of terrorists: we are not talking about Al-Qaida, but about a people who was for too long denied some sort of sovereignty by USSR. Today that USSR has collapsed, Russia appears to be even more aggressive to this little piece of land in Caucasian mountains. And obviously they want the world to think they're right about it!!!
In my humble opinion, if you are using the internet to research a subject, then Wikipedia is as reliable as any other source out there. Wikipedia is one of the few mass-use sites out there with any sort of content oversight at all. I understand the necessity of using the internet to research, but if your sole source of information comes online, then your research is dubious to begin with. You might as well be using Wikipedia as it is often the most up to date source you can find.
Check out wikipedia's trust index here
http://www.trust-index.com/item.php?sel_item=26
Vote for it to express how much you trust it!
Check out wikipedia's trust index here
http://www.trust-index.com/item.php?sel_item=26
Vote for it to express how much you trust it!