Why wikipedia cannot be trusted

[johnsemlak]

I absolutely love wikipedia, one of my favorite sites. When I know absolutely nothign about a topic I go there all the time.

That said, yeah, you have to be careful what you read there, especially about controversial topics. As above people mention, check the discussion and edit logs, and above all, confirm anything you really need to be right about with a more reliable source. That's good advice in a lot of situations.

I wouldn't use it in serious research, of course. But that's hardly a fair criticism.

 

[Thotas]

It is true that anyone can edit wikipedia, and you have to take that into account. But those books in the library and such ... yeah, anybody can do that, too. Same rule is applicable. Ann Coulter and Al Franken both have books, and they're even right there in the same section. Not much agreement, though, so it would indicate that a single source isn't enough for any kind of serious research; you've got to gather several to sort out the good info from the bad. That's what research is. And I think that was Umbran's point.

 

[Psionicist]

Wikipedia isn't a definiative, authoritative resource you'd do serious research or cite in an academic context, but it's a good general reference that is well known, quick, and extremely broad in its scope. I'm an avid reader (and contributor) to wikipedia, but I have no illusions about it being some definiative and authoritative reference.

You are using the word authoritative like it's a good thing. The reason so many people like Wikipedia is because it mostly correct (at least 95% correct) _and_ it has information about pretty much everything an authoritative resource wouldn't allow. When was the last time you read conventional encyclopedias with entries for Grue, Hocico, Family Guy AND Linear Bounded Automaton, Epicentre, Faddeev-Popov Ghost. Wikipedia is like your neighbor who knows something about pretty much everything you ask him, and is therefor an excellent HHGTTG-like starting point (as someone said).

 

[ssampier]

I love Wikipedia. I can find almost any topic and learn a little bit about something without having to wade through countless web pages. Sure it's not scholarly or often very well researched, but for my purposes, it's fine (kinda like asking your smart buddy "what is [blank]?"*). Serious research I'll stick to scholarly journals and articles (usually available through a university library search database).

[size="-2"]*of course mine would say something like "Dude, I don't know. Want a beer?"[/size]

 

[mythusmage]

Of course there are ghosts. Watch over-the-air tv in an area with bad reception and you'll see lots of ghosts.

 

[Psion]

If you truly belive a site is not worth reading because a single mistake, stop reading ENWorld, because I'm pretty sure there's an error somewhere.

That thar almost be sigworthy.

 

[WizarDru]

I like wikipedia, but I wouldn't trust it for much other than the most rudimentary and broad discussions of topics. The former chief editor of Encylopedia Britannica issued an opinion about wikipedia that I pretty much agree with. It's good for some general source information with an emphasis on geek topics, but don't trust it for specifics and understand that it's potentially RIFE with factual errors. It's a nice pie-in-the-sky project that has a lot of merit, but it's not a replacement for an encyclopedia.

His dissection of the Alexander Hamilton page, for example, with multiple self-conflicting entries (at that time) blatantly incorrect information (mentioning states that weren't states at that time, listing incorrect years for his vice-presidency) and so forth. And then his subsequent examination of just one set of edits (someone added a fact, someone removed a fact, another person reinstated the fact and still another person RE-removed the fact, banned someone else and then changed the fact to something else entirely).

Personally, I think wikipedia is a nice pet project and a great kick-off point for information gathering...but not much more than that. The problem with creating an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to or edit is that anyone can contribute to or edit it.

(Edit: Fixed what my faulty memory recalled)

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Wikipedia is more sociological phenomia and reliable source.

 

[frankthedm]

Personally, I see it as the real-life version of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, a reference with editors around the world who provide a relatively informal and strangely ecclectic reference that is also uniquely popular despite their being more respectable reference works available...

DING! We have a winner

I like wiki because the users' slant the information to thier individual ends, rather than a publishing house whoring its books to benefit its megacorporate parent.

Ectoplasm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In cell biology, ectoplasm ("outer plasma") refers to the outer regions of the cytoplasm of a cell. Ectoplasm typically contains a smaller amount of protein granules and other organic compounds than inner cytoplasm, also referred to as endoplasm.
In parapsychology, ectoplasm is the name given to a hypothetical form of dense bio-energy liberated by living things which is claimed to make possible the materialisation of ghosts and psychokinesis. The term ectoplasm was used in a similar sense in the 1984 film Ghostbusters. In the early twentieth century, photographs claiming to show ectoplasm were occasionally published; these were largely shown to be fraudulent. Often the medium would have concealed cheesecloth or a similar substance about their person to produce at an appropriate moment. Numerous studies in the 1950s and 60s have claimed to confirm the existence of ectoplasm. Ectoplasm is believed by spiritualists to projects itself from people during meditation. Helen Duncan, a British psychic, is believed to truly have materialised spirits of deceased persons through ectoplasm. She was convicted in Europe's last witchcraft trial (1944).
Ectoplasm is also a term used to describe the vapour appearing on the wings of an aircraft when it is performing high-energy manoeuvres. Typically this effect is seen by most people at airshow during modern jet fighter aerobatic displays. See also St. Elmo's Fire. This effect also has other names in other parts of the world. The study of this effect was the focus of the famous Philadelphia experiment.
See also
Aura
Kirlian photography