Comments on: What’s Your Take on Wikipedia?

By: Wendy Peters

Wendy Peters — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:25:15 +0000

Yet another article to make me think. I’ve never questioned the reliability of Wikipedia. It’s become my resource just as the encyclopedia used to be. Now there is something to add to the death watch list. I think Wikipedia is reliable for information that is not subject to change. Things like the habitat and eating patterns of certain mammals, when the telephone was invented, etc. You know, the information you used to look up in the encyclopedia. But as far as current information, I would still be double checking any financial numbers, population statistics, etc. beyond taking them as true from Wikipedia.

By: Malorie Stroud

Malorie Stroud — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:59:54 +0000

With over a million articles of information, Wikipedia is a very comprehensive site. Highlighting information from current events, to events in history that correspond with the current date, Wikipedia is designed to inform the general public. While subject to error and misconstrued information, Wikipedia is not the only source of information that faces such problems. In fact, being that the public monitors Wikipedia, it generally provides accountable information. Viewed, created and reviewed by the general public, Wikipedia is scrutinized for its accuracy despite the face that its users have even made corrections to the Britannica encyclopedia entries. As Wikipedia was criticized for inaccuracies as a result of public postings, the free information source noted, " (there are a) growing list of ‘Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia’ for them to fix” (‘Wikipedia Hits Back at Criticism-poynter.org) While Wikipedia is a collaborative source of information, many are still hesitant to consider it a valid information source. While some of the information may not be accurate, it serves as a valid reference point and has plentiful up-to-date resources for researchers. With so many perspectives to consider, one journalist notes, “it’s especially useful for following fast-moving or niche topics” (‘Wikipedia as a Lead Source’-poynter. org).

To combat the reliability of their site and to prevent illegitimate posts, Wikipedia now requires that posters identify themselves. This alleviates the misuse of certain information and false posts. As Steven Outing notes on his poynter.org posting, ‘It used to be that anyone could create a new article and be anonymous; likewise with editing an existing Wikipedia page. Now, only registered users can create a new article -- though to edit something, anonymity is still possible’ (A Tamer Wikipedia).

Overall, Wikipedia seems a valid reference point for serious researchers if used with discresion. Providing multiple sources and perspectives on a variety of subjects, the website is certainly a source to consider when researching. With the addition of features and restrictions to the site such as eliminating anonymity of those wishing to post to the site, it seems the information will only become more valid.

By: Bryce Deling

Bryce Deling — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:45:09 +0000

Wikipedia is not a reliable resource for serious researchers. According to Adam Lashinsky of Fortune Magazine, “WIKIPEDIA, THE ONLINE encyclopedia, has become one of the fastest-growing and buzziest destinations on the web, thanks in large part to the devoted community that slaves over its authoritative entries.” Sadly, these authoritative entries can be preformed by anyone.

It is a comprehensive encyclopedia tool that thrives on virtually anyone’s opinions. Sure, it is a wonderful tool to gain knowledge from any subject matter under the sun. It has millions of articles and discussion forums for people to discuss anything from the most well known serial killer to information on flying- squirrels.

Unfortunately, it is not reliable for a serious researcher because it lacks credible, scholarly information. In the arena of strength and relevance, Wikipedia is very weak. For example, “The November controversy over an inaccurate entry on veteran newsman John Seigenthaler highlighted the problems with the popular online encyclopedia's format, which allows users to edit entries,” writes Forbes Magazine author Elizabeth Corcoran.

Wikipedia is a great tool for gaining bundles of information. This is the beauty of allowing unlimited amounts of information for anyone to enter. But when people constantly edit information, reliability suffers. ‘The problem with Wikipedia is that it's constantly changing,’ Patents Commissioner John Doll said. Clearly, if information is constantly changing, its relevance and strength are dismantled. For Sunday researchers that are curious about what they slept through in History 101, Wikipedia is wonderful. But for serious researchers looking to find reliable information, Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia.

By: Scott Minor

Scott Minor — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:38:23 +0000

Since attending the University of Denver two of my professors have bad talked Wikipedia which has made me very skeptical about the so called “reliable” encyclopedia web site. I never frequently used Wikipedia, but when I used it I thought it was a reliable web site that consisted of a variety of quality information. I am aware that the web site has some valididty issues, but I trust the information that is provided to us researchers based on evidence I have witnessed. A part of me is still skeptical about the site and I would really like to learn more about it.

By: Saad T. Alsudairy

Saad T. Alsudairy — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:19:47 +0000

i do not think that wikipedia is the right place for serious researchers, although it might be a rich general information resource and according to the comment of Rubel, Steve He emphasizes that brands should have a way to challenge inaccurate information in a way that respects the wishes of the Wikipedia community.
"Wikipedia bio provides false information" eWeek; 9/4/2006, Vol. 23 Issue 35, p33-33, 1/5p

"wikipedia have, as yet, failed to achive the credibility of printed reference work."
Information World Review; Jul/Aug2006 Issue 226, p24-24, 1/3p

By: Travis Williams

Travis Williams — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:18:57 +0000

The idea behind Wikipedia is a good one. The concept of an encyclopedia which constantly gets updated has the potential to work very well, if everyone using it is serious about providing accurate information. Chris Anderson suggests, “When professionals — editors, academics, journalists — are running the show, we at least know that it’s someone’s job to look out for such things as accuracy. But now we’re depending more and more on systems where nobody’s in charge; the intelligence is simply emergent.” Since anyone and everyone can click onto Wikipedia and edit any article which is posted on that site, there are bound to be people posting incorrect information or pranks. One of the more well known pranks that have happened on Wikipedia was done by Brian Chase. He edited an article to say that John Seigenthaler Sr. had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. It is so easy for anyone to change the information on the site; this prank was caught quickly because it is probably a highly searched topic, but what about some of the topics with very few people searching them. There are bound to be some obscure topics which few people are knowledgeable on and some one could easily change the information without people knowing. Steve Outing says Wikipedia is, “about to impose stricter editorial rules to prevent vandalism of its content.” If this actually happens, it would seem that this source would become much more credible.

By: Linnea Blystad

Linnea Blystad — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:16:46 +0000

Wikipedia is definitely a huge resource for people searching for facts and other information on the web. However I would say that I am rather sceptic of how reliable Wikipedia as a source is. This because it is not written and regulated by professionals, and anyone can add information. However I have through certain articles, found by use of the Business Source Premier, taken a standpoint.
-Wikipedia bio provides false information-
“I hadn’t checked out my Wiki page in a long time, so I go on there and read some history about myself that never happened and other stud that was just wrong” (Mark Cuban).
- Kicking Wiki out of the patent-
"The problem with Wikipedia is that it's constantly changing," Patents Commissioner John Doll said. "We've taken Wikipedia off our list of accepted sources of information." An agency spokesperson said inquiries from BusinessWeek about the use of Wikipedia led to the policy shift.
- Freedom of information – is the truth out there? -
“A fact that appears on two hundred websites, blogs, and Wikipedia is a fact that few would care to
argue against. Yet who knows what the original source was?”

Based on these quotes from articles found by help of the Business Source Premier, I have to disagree with the statement that Wikipedia is a reliable source for serious researches. It is mentioned in the last quote, that the information provided on these websites are difficult to find in their original form. Because the information has been copied and pasted through several years + the fact that anyone can add and subtract info, it is difficult to fully trust the information provided. The first quote also indicates this, when Mr. Mark Cuban found out that the information about him on the Wikipedia was not true and had never happened. This quote truly states the fact that there is information on the Wikipedia that is not correct.
However, I do believe Wikipedia is useful as a source in some situations. Sometimes, when doing research, it is good to have a starting point.

By: Claire Walker

Claire Walker — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:03:04 +0000

In about January of last year I discovered something wonderful: Wikipedia. It seemed to have something and every subject I need. However, I never considered to sources of the online encyclopedia. With a database open to everyone there are bound to be people who make mistakes when submitting an article. As Jay Small says “One must trust that the community around Wikipedia will catch up to inaccurate or dated information, but rarely knows who put t there in the first place.” Part of the problem is not knowing the origin of the information. I think that although some of the information is not correct it is a good place to start. As Amy Gahran puts it Wikipedia is “a good source of leads, overviews, and basic definitions.” Basing any information off of one source is never smart anyways. Gahran also says that any good journalists double and triple checks their information. I think that Wikipedia is a great place to start research on a topic, but it would be inappropriate to rely on an open source such as Wikipedia as the lone source of information.

By: Alexandra Yellin

Alexandra Yellin — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:05:37 +0000

Wikipedia I think is an awesome resource for basic information. Topics that are easily answered and understood by many. It is a great website to get quick answers as well. As for important informant I would not consider it a trusting source. “I don’t trust it for everything, but it’s incredibly helpful for really basic info on ideas/inventions/biographies.” This quote was found on poynter.com by a journalist who has worked with the website. There is too much room for people to print inaccurate data. There should be a hiring panel or volunteers that have been picked for specific skills. Another quote I found stated, “One must trust that the community around Wikipedia will catch up to inaccurate or dated information, but rarely knows who put it there in the first place.” For reliable facts, encyclopedias are still a better source.

By: John Bowlen

John Bowlen — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:00:13 +0000

When researching the ability’s of online references it is important to understand that so many companies in the world today are constantly in a power struggle over what the internet truly describes there company as. The reason for this is because the World Wide Web today is turning into a giant referencing source, and depending on whoever is willing to put more money into it then the better things that will be said about that company. “Like it or not, the Wikipedia open-source phenomenon looms large right where companies are increasingly spending billions of dollars to jockey for position: on search-engine results pages.” Steve Rubal explains why companies are so concerned with the search engines. With companies in a constant struggle with one another to accomplish good online referencing it is important to understand that the company with the most money will obviously have the most references. So when researching it is important to understand that several companies pay more money then others simply to get there info out there to people; however, when looking for a reliable source for serious research online references such as Wikipedia are not the most reliable simply because of the politics behind the online business today. Not only are the sources on the Internet such as Wikipedia not as reliable but also they are also politically incorrect. In the Journal of the American Society for information science & Technology they comment on the fact that Wikipedia has anti-Semitic sites in there research database know as “Jew Watch” making them supporters of very discriminatory remarks. This is evidence that not only is the information on Wikipedia.com unreliable but also in many cases wrong and inhumane. The definition of Wikipedia.com found on Business Source Premier is, “The online encyclopedia written collaboratively by contributors around the world in 230 languages” according to this definition Wikipedia sounds like a great online reference for reliable research; however, after doing some research on the topic it became very evident to me that Wikipedia did not turn out how it was originally planned to. There are several reasons why the online reference site Wikipedia.com is not a reliable resource for research, but the most important factor in corrupting this online resource was the money behind it. Wikipedia.com is an unreliable resource that should not be used for serious researchers because major organizations and companies are paying to get their opinion out there rather then anyone else. My take on Wikipedia.com is that I will never use it simply because it is not a primary source and it is not reliable at all. The information found on Wikipedia.com is false due to the fact that whoever has the most money creates the information found.

Sources:
Bar-llan, Judit. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology; Oct2006, Vol. 57 Issue 12, p1581-1589, 9p.

McConnon, Aili. COLLECTING THE WISDOM OF CROWDS. Business Week, 00077135, 9/25/2006, Issue 4002.

Rubel, Steve. Your brand on Wikipedia. Advertising Age, 00018899, 9/11/2006, Vol. 77, Issue 37.