What do you think of Wiki?

[Nutmegger]

Poll question: What do you think of Wiki?

This post was inspired by the Feinstein staffers editing her Wiki entry.

Personally, I think Wiki is good overall but I always fact check the information. ALWAYS!

[RagingInMiami]

1. I think Wiki is one of the most credible sources on the web

It corrects itself.

[mattclearing]

3. Exactly what I said.

[geomon666]

5. What? You can't mean that.

A site where anyone at any time can edit any entry they choose without explanation is credible to you? Good lord.

[MrBenchley]

13. Yumpin' Yiminy! What a source!

Why, someone can make something up, put it in Wikipedia, and then link to it to "prove" whatever the hell he pulls out of his ass. It's ideal for internet blowhards and loonies!

[RagingInMiami]

21. "on the web"

Show me something that is more consistenly credible on such a wide range of topics. For me, it's a good starting point when I want to research something.

[benburch]

16. Nonsense.

It has a lot of political bias.

It is basically run by freepers as far as political entries are concerned.

Why? Because they have no lives other than freeping things.

[RagingInMiami]

22. OK, maybe your entry on wiki was freeped

But for general information, I think it's pretty credible.

[mattclearing]

2. Other - more reliable than most.

I don't always fact check, but I am more likely to believe Wikipedia than I am almost any other source, because it has more built-in accountability than any other source.

[mattclearing]

4. And that's why the media has been attacking it lately. n/t

[DelawareValleyDem]

6. A good place to start research, a bad place to end it

Also, the write by committee approach sometimes results in articles that are difficult to read. However, those that get rewritten are usually vastly improved.

[Book Lover]

7. Wiki is a cute idea that is unfortunately not authoritative

as much as they would like to be. Any reference source that can be edited by anyone cannot claim to be authoritative, and yet they do. And people buy it, which is what slays me.

[ThoughtCriminal]

8. Congressional staffers have been busy editting

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Congressional_staff_actions_prompt_Wikipedia_investigation

It's really hilarious to look up the edit history and see what changes and deletions are made from the House IP address (143.231.249.141). Senate too (156.33.x.x)

Re-writing history at taxpayer expense.

One of the things I like about Wiki is that this "re-writing" is public - and often more revealing than the story by itself. Knowing what they don't want you to read is enlightening.

[bryant69]

9. I think Wiki is good in some areas

But wouldn't trust it if the information was really important.

Rather I think random posts by fellow members of Democratic Underground are by far the most reliable source of information in America. Oh, and blogs too.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. It's ok but I get too frustrated when my additions are edited away. I'm

afraid I have too much ego for it. *lol*

[DelawareValleyDem]

15. I know what you mean

There's even a boldface warning on the editing pages stating:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

I've submitted a couple of lengthy passages that were subsequently hacked away, and it annoyed me too. Now I only do minor updates.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Even my minor updates get sliced and diced. *blah*

[Posteritatis]

11. I find it increasingly hard to trust

Between the true-believers, the fact that anyone can edit anything, and the increasingly open contempt for expertise? Yeahno, give me something reliable instead.

[Selatius]

12. It's open to propaganda wars and disinformation campaigns

Anything dealing with politics or hot-button issues is unreliable on wikipedia because the information is always being changed depending on who is reading and gets upset with what is displayed regardless if the information is factually correct or not. It's an example of a perfectly fine idea being turned to crap by people with an agenda. It's always the damn idiots who ruin the fun for everyone.

The only time it's really reliable is when one looks up scientific information and information not usually subject to political bias and enmity.

[Hatalles]

14. Yeah, but...

Some of the GWB edits are HILARIOUS! ;)

[readmoreoften]

17. I've met too many people who make up the info in reference books.

I trust wiki. I live in NYC and I've worked with writers and for writers of reference non-fiction and I was almost told to just make things up out of thin air. I trust wiki more.

[Igel]

18. I trust some entries more than others, and use the background

knowledge I have and common sense. And a sniff test: are the facts all one sided, is the language non-neutral, are rules of coherence and cohesion violated? All these tend to show quick, partisan editing.

Political or controversial entries are likely to be very good or very bad--it depends if it's been locked. The talk pages are available for review, and frequently very enlightening for the controversial entries.

Topical entries are frequently wonderful, unless also controversial or political. Then the facts are usually right--just selective. And such entries are updated with blinding speed. When a prominent phonetician died recently, his Wiki entry was updated before the dept. could send out the official notice to students and colleagues; the Wiki entry also includes the proper pronunciation of his name, something the MSM, based on interviewing friends and family, botched.

Tech entries or general historical entries are likely to be good. The links provided are usually good for following up, and frequently provide a good first resource for debunking or verifying some claim.

[redherring]

20. Well by Wiki if you mean Wikipedia

Nature magazine has this to say:

"carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule.

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

[Nutmegger]

23. Yes I meant Wikipedia

Thanks for the article; I remember reading something of the sort a while back.:D

[0rganism]

24. depends on the subject material

If it's about a living person or the creative work of a living person or a contemporary nation or political party or, basically, anything controversial, it should be regarded cautiously. Much depends on the agenda of the latest revisor. The discussion page can be useful; often, the more active and disagreeable the discussion, the less reliable the topic entry.

If the subject is fairly dry, technical, or otherwise lends itself to content-neutrality, wikipedia can be a really nice jumping off point for further research. I would not use it as a primary source.