I am shocked to hear and read this information. I have been using Wikipedia for some research and now I question what I have found. It is very ironic that I noticed today, for the first time, that on Wikipedia it says that you can add information to the site. I was baffled because why would "an encyclopedia" allow you to add information to it? I would not think that an encyclopedia would be accurate if users were allowed to make additions so as I closed that tab I thought about it. Then I decided to do my blog entries for class and, low and behold, Wikipedia is the subject!
I read the NPR blog first. That is when I had my initial shock reaction. If you cannot trust Wikipedia then why is it the first site to come up when you Google a topic? So I was a bit apprehensive because I did not want it to be true because, like I stated previously, I have being using Wikipedia for research information. There is a small reference to Virgil Griffith and the Wikipedia Scanner so I am like, "Who is this guy?" The next thing I do is read the NPR article on Wikipedia which goes into a little more detail about Vigil Griffith and listen to the podcast which are on the same site. Now I feel my world crumbling down. It was not until the Wired story that I accepted it.
I do not believe that any information on Wikipedia can be trusted at all. If someone does choose to use this information, I would hope that he or she would have other sources to either corroborate or negate the information retrieved from Wikipedia. Maybe if you searched the definition of a circle or some other known definition then maybe you can accept it but who knows! I know now to NEVER use Wikipedia as a resource. I wondered why the pages were so long too. I guess they would be if someone was doctoring everything up. In my opinion, Wikipedia cannot be trusted. Thanks to Virgil Griffith, a lot of people are now aware of what is going on and his brilliance has exposed so many people that I hope they think twice before doing any editing of any sort.
Wikipedia isn't perfect, and there are lots and lots of examples that can show you that. But it isn't useless like some people want to believe, either. What you need to do, is have a critical mind when you read on Wikipedia, just like you need to do with any other source of information. (I have said this on several blog comments lately, but it is true.)
ReplyDeleteMost of the people who write on Wikipedia are honest enthusiasts who write because they think it's fun and interesting. Some of them know a lot about things (not all of them are "happy amateurs", although most are), and some don't know that much, so the quality of the articles will vary. And yes, you will find errors here and there. But Wikipedia is forever a "work in progress". It will never be finished, but the quality is getting better and better, and has been for 8 years now.
I don't expect you to start loving Wikipedia just because I say it has a decent quality. But instead of just closing the tab, you should look around on Wikipedia and find out how it works. Most of the people who use Wikipedia don't have a clue about how it works. It isn't as simple as that anyone can write and there is no control over what's on there. There are people who browse most of the edits and who will remove vandalism and nonsense as soon as they see it. The system doesn't work 100 %, I'd be lying if I said it did. But there is a difference between "not 100 % perfect control" and "no control at all".
I am not saying you should do this, because there is enough vandalism that people have to remove as it is, but I could almost be tempted to tell you to go ahead and try to make a stupid little edit on Wikipedia, like a nonsense, two word article or something. You probably won't get blocked for editing the first time you do it, but I'll be very surprised if it takes more than 5 minutes before the edit is removed.
Excellent review Alexis. I do not recommend going around and posting nontrue information just to test a theory. I do highly recommend you use Google Scholar and the library's databases for research related work.
ReplyDeleteThank you blue^elf for taking the time out to comment on my blog!!!
ReplyDelete