Yeah I do actually I am learning to speak a second language. Que tengas un buen dia
Merci, bonne journée.
first of all PriateRiver I guess you didn’t understand what I said was that Wikipedia is not accurate which is trueand that 98% of wikipedoa pages can be changed so therefore the argument is valid I hope you can understand that
Yes I do understand that changes can be submitted by anyone… but must be reviewed and approved to be incorporated into the subject page.
Leave him. You never going to open his eyes. You see, 98% accurate is not good for him. lol
that is right marcipan because only an idiot would believe that Wikipedia is 98% accurate when information on most Wikipedia pages can be chaned. and so no body has been able to prove that Wikipedia is any where close to being accurate. I hope you and PirateRiver can understand because I can’t ake it any simpler for both you
@gbus Why you dont change one then. ONE, only one page. Its too hard to prove your point?
Or, send me one page you refer to as spooky/fals/whatever.
Please , stop your nonsense without proof. If you do that too long, someone may believe you in the end. Thats would be disaster.
marcipan I realize that you live in the internet world and believe that Wikipedia is accurate which it is not any where near being acuurate. And many if the Wikipedia pages have been proven not accurate. But it can not made siple enough for people who live in the world Wikipedia to understand
Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
October 27, 2011 08:00 AM
by Mark E. Moran
Wikipedia provides Internet users with millions of articles on a broad range of topics, and commonly ranks first in search engines. But its reliability and credibility fall well short of the standards for a school paper. According to Wikipedia itself, “[W]hile some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. … use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn’t.”
To help you develop such an understanding, we present 10 reasons you can’t rely on information in Wikipedia.
Share
- You must never fully rely on any one source for important information.
Everyone makes mistakes. All scholarly journals and newspapers contain “corrections” sections in which they acknowledge errors in their prior work. And even the most neutral writer is sometimes guilty of not being fully objective. Thus, you must take a skeptical approach to everything you read.
The focus of your search should be on finding accurate information and forming a full picture of an issue, rather than believing the first thing you read. This is particularly true on the Internet, where anyone can publish, cheaply and quickly. Always verify important information by confirming it with multiple sources.
-
You especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.
Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are. In order to properly evaluate information on the Internet, there are three questions you must always ask; the first two are “Who wrote this?” and “Why did they write it?” On sites with anonymous authors like Wikipedia, you can’t find this information. -
The contributor with an agenda often prevails.
In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia’s group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.
In March 2009, Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain.
Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use Web sites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out.
- Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.
Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.
According to The Financial Post, when Connolley was through editing, “The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.” Connolley has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but one blogger believes he continues to post.
Furthermore, in 2007, a new program called WikiScanner uncovered individuals with a clear conflict of interest that had written or edited some Wikipedia entries. Employees from organizations such as the CIA, the Democratic National Party and Diebold were editing Wikipedia entries in their employers’ favor.
- Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for months.
Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, users can falsify entries. Though in many instances reviewers quickly delete this “vandalism,” occasionally false information can remain on Wikipedia for extended periods of time.
For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.
- There is little diversity among editors.
According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe and North America, and many of them are in graduate school.
Although most of these editors are undoubtedly intelligent and passionate about enhancing the accuracy of Wikipedia, the site falls far short of its ideals of providing “the sum of all human knowledge” without the broad perspectives that a more diversified pool of editors would bring.
-
The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined.
The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia. -
It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.
According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.
A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.
- Accurate contributors can be silenced.
Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.
When the Taliban kidnapped New York Times reporter David Rohde in Afghanistan, the paper convinced 40 media organizations plus Wikipedia not to report on it out of concerns that it would compromise Rohde’s safety. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told the Times, once Rohde was free, that “We were really helped by the fact that it (postings on Rohde) hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source.” Thus, Wales and other senior Wikipedia editors showed they were willing to rely on the “unreliable source” canard to delete information they had been told by a very reliable source was true, even when a more noble reason—Rohde’s safety—would have justified it.
And finally, the number one reason you can’t cite or rely on Wikipedia:
- It says so on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because some articles may contain errors,” you should “not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.”
Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its “About” section, “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information.”
Reference: Using Wikipedia
Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea’s Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom.
North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the “article,” “discussion,” “edit this page” and “history” tabs to go “beneath the surface” of Wikipedia.
Stephen Colbert takes a satirical view of Wikipedia in a segment on his show and on his own user-generated encyclopedia, Wikiality. Though intended for laughs, it captures, in an entertaining fashion, why Wikipedia can’t be relied upon as a sole source of information.
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
On This Day: Ford Model T Unveiled
associate in Public Projects at CHNM and a PhD candidate in American history at George Mason University.
.
Browse by Category
Classroom Management
Collaboration
Collecting and Organizing
Multimedia
Presentations
Research
Social Networking
Visuals and Visualizing
.
Home » Digital Classroom » Ask a Digital Historian
Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?
wikipedia editorial cartoon
Question
How do I get students to realize that Wikipedia should not be used as a credible source (especially as they enter college), even though some of the information is factually accurate?
Answer
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is quite clear about the uses of Wikipedia. Asked, "Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia? during an interview with Business Week in 2005, he replied, “No, I don’t think people should cite it, and I don’t think people should cite Britannica, either… People shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should…give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level.”
Wikipedia is an excellent case study on research in the digital age.
That said, Wikipedia entries are generally in the forefront of preliminary web research on almost any topic. And teaching students to look critically at the reliability and credibility of any information source is fundamental to the educational process. Figuring out how to evaluate the encyclopedia, then, is one excellent starting point for teaching students how to assess massive amounts of information they’re likely to encounter online both for school work and personal exploration.
Wikipedia itself is strong on self-assessment. Encyclopedia editors address accuracy in the entry Reliability of Wikipedia, compiling the results of international third-party assessments across a variety of disciplines. The consensus: the encyclopedia is as accurate as other encyclopedias. And as Cathy Davidson, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University, points out in We Can’t Ignore the Influence of Digital Technologies (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2007), unlike comparable print sources, Wikipedia errors can be corrected and often are in a matter of hours after publication.
Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy.
While accuracy may not be Wikipedia’s major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative scholarship. Researching with Wikipedia points out that few articles are of encyclopedic quality when they first appear—they may be unbalanced, biased, and incomplete, and it takes time for contributors to find consensus. Wikipedia for Academic Use advises users to explore whether articles represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Each of Wikipedia’s own articles fostering critical thinking includes links to further analysis and comment on the encyclopedia’s value and utility.
In the Classroom
The National Writing Project White Paper Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe suggests teaching students how entries on the site change and about the transparency with which each change is debated. “Wikipedia’s transparent and participatory nature invites visitors to question what they’re reading in ways that static, expert-driven reference texts do not.” The article provides a site guide to Wikipedia, examples of classroom discussion and activities with Wikipedia, and a bibliography of further resources.
Wikipedia in the Classroom at Finding Dulcinea also offers annotated links to classroom resources related to teaching students how to approach and use Wikipedia and to lesson plans.
Add new comment
It’s unfairly treated
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 06/24/2014 - 19:55.
My issue with people criticizing Wikipedia is that for the most part it seems to be a lie that was repeated over and over again and now everyone believes it. Everyone seems to think that Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it. I argue it’s actually better than most academic sources because while anyone can edit it, they can’t edit it without what they’re doing coming to scrutiny or discussion (unless it’s some really unimportant or obscure topic like a MC Hammer album or a Golfer’s score). Alot of other websites which teachers allow students to use don’t and I’ve seen websites I’m allowed to use in school work and teachers themselves be incorrect more often than I’ve seen Wikipedia be incorrect. Hell even history documentaries more often than not reinforce common misconceptions and myths rather than disspell them. Here are some examples; I was researching ancient Mesopotamia and I came across an American-Israeli project for the Middle East which talked about it. In the middle of it it called the Elamites and Iranians in general, Semites. This is completely incorrect; Elamites are Iranian, who in turn are Aryans aka people who speak Indo-European languages. Jews are semites, Babylonians are Semites, Assyrians, Arabs etc. but Persians are not. Another example was when I was watching history’s documentary on the leaders of WWII and a part about WWI seemed to imply that the Germans introduced chemical warfare to WWI. This is a common myth leftover from WWI propaganda, the first people to use poisonous gases were the French with tear gas. The Germans merely expanded it. On top of this it portrayed chemical weapons incorrectly, implying that they were fired in shells. This isn’t true either, they were first just released in the wind towards the enemy, introduction of shells with chemical weapons didn’t come until later in the war. This is important because after gas masks were invented chemical weapons killed very few soldiers, and even before that soldiers just ducked and waited for the poisonous gas to go away. They were in general very ineffective and exaggerated as propaganda pieces (and the Allies used the same chemical weapons but punished anyone who said they were “Chemical weapons”).
If Wikipedia were to make mistakes like this they would be immediately criticized and corrected, but sources which are allowed are free to make these mistakes because they’re perceived to have a more authoritative background. That’s my central issue; Wikipedia has a system for rooting out incorrect information and indeed major articles like say WWII are going to be pretty accurate and scrutinized and often containing conflicting viewpoints. Non-Wikipedia sources tend to lack information and make mistakes which makes me angry that Wikipedia can’t be used since it’s a really good source.
reply
.
I am currently going to
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 03/26/2013 - 19:48.
I am currently going to school for my BSN and I would just like to comment on the issue. I will say it… I USE WIKIPEDIA A LOT. I believe that if a survey was given most people would say the same. I think the deeper and honestly more meaningful issue should be the awareness and potential usefullness of Wikipedia as that excellent starting point. One of the biggest reasons I use it is because of its organization of “mostly” meaningful information. One who is researching a topic can instantly find quite literally millions of articles on…well name it and its probably there. It is a most useful means of gathering together Important main points on a subject that one knows nothing about. I think, of coarse this would never fly with anyone, that Wikipedia should be used exclusively as a non-credible source, but only for gathering a Lamens type of knowledge about said subject to then proceed to Journal review, primary sources type research. I belive that Wikipedia should not be bashed for its uncredibility or lack of cited sources, but acknowledged for the wealth of immidiate and easy to find information to help one wrap his/her mind around a new research subject…and no I am in no way employed, advocating, or affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Above all be smart. Hoddy Toddy.
reply
.
Thank you
Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/13/2011 - 22:19.
I’m a 37-year-old freshman at Mount Hood Community College in Gresham, Oregon. We are currently researching source credibility in WR 121. Seeking to be a teacher when I graduate, I find your site and this article in particular, informative and worthy of sighting in the ongoing debate over Wikipedia’s and the internet’s standing as a valid research tool. Thanks again, Jesse
reply
.
Wikipedia
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 18:05.
While I agree with most of what has been posted on accuracy in Wikipedia entries, often the most valuable contribution to a posting are the footnotes at the end of an entry which often cite primary sources (most
Thanks for coming to my rescue!
PirateRiver I went to your resource only to prove that everyone of your statements about Wikipedia are in correct If you can’t understand that I can not make that any simpler for you
You just shoot yourself on the foot with that long copy/paste comment.
like I said marcipan when you and PirateRiver live in the Wikipedia world I can make it siple for either of you two understand that Wikipedia is not accurate and if it was they would would want college students to use it has a resource
gbus u sound like a racist broken record. give it up.
PirateRiver I will make a couple direct to you and only you idiot.
1st: I have nevr said in a racists manner
2nd: I a proud veteran of the United States service
3rd:I don’t n live in the world of wikipedia
1 Like
Let me guess. You made a search in google, “how much is wikipedia reliable” , you copy paste the first article ( what is actually not your faver) and you forget look up properly…
marcipan like I have said Wikipedia is not accurate and not used by college students as a form pf resource. I can’t make it any sipler for you and if you can’t understand the facts I feel sorry for lack of education
1 Like
RP is clearly an international site if you take the trouble to look at the flags attending any game. If people are messaging one to one with a fellow countryman, I can see nothing wrong at all in them using their native tongue. To insist on English as the only means of communication on RP is an unlovely form of xenophobia (sorry for using a Greek word here, but it best fits the bill).
Bravo.
I think this was intended to “PlayerTwo” not PirateRiver.
Since we’re closing in towards the Godwin’s law I suggest we stop this thread 