Wikipedia - How/when do you trust it?

[RBG]

Wikipedia is one of the most used sites on the internet currently. With the vast wealth of information that is readily obtainable from it, it is one of the first places people turn to in order to find information. However, critics are quick to point out that the "anyone can edit" policy makes it by default not trust worthy. Having edited Wikipedia, interacting with the community and being made an Admin (equivalent to a Forum Mod here), I would disagree. The "Anyone can edit" policy is one of the biggest strengths of Wikipedia. This allows anyone to fix a mistake that they might see, which is good in the long run.

Before I go any farther, I must mention that there are two main exceptions to the "Anyone can edit" policy. There are actually two ways in with a person can be prevented from editing. If they have a history of making bad edits, their IP address or username can be banned from editing. Also, many high traffic articles are "Protected" from editing, meaning that either only User accounts can edit, or if needed, only an admin can edit.

Also, to keep wikipedia running smoothly, there are 42 overarching polices.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-03-13/Tutorial

By The Placebo Effect, 13 March 2008

Wikipedia is a project that has wide boundaries. As such, there are many rules and policies that describe how things are done. As of right now, there are 42 policies that are enforced and used in the maintenance of Wikipedia. A brief summary of each policy, listed in bold, sorted into categories, follows. (Note: This only covers official policies, not guidelines)

1.1 Behavioral

The first few policies deal with an editor's start on Wikipedia. The Username policy limits certain names from being used, including those of celebrities (unless you can prove who you say you are), ones that imply leadership on Wikipedia, are offensive, or are similar to an established user. Usernames can be changed by going to Wikipedia:Changing username and requesting an unused username, or one that has no edits can be usurped. Editors are discouraged from having multiple accounts, often called sock puppets, and are disallowed from using them to "create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block."

After this, the Editing policy states simply that editors should work on improving pages, without regarding perfection, because it can be fixed later. However, certain types of edits are prohibited:

* Vandalism – Any editor that repeatedly makes edits that are obviously trying to disrupt Wikipedia can be blocked or permanently banned.
* Edit Warring – If you and other editors are consistently reverting each other's edits, stop editing, and discuss it on the talk page.
* Breaking the Three-revert rule – You may be blocked for making 4 or more reverts to one article within a 24 hour time period.
* Acting like you own an article – By editing Wikipedia, you allow others to edit any articles you edit or create. Asserting control over any article is prohibited.

Most of your interaction with other editors takes place on the Talk Pages. There are three main policies for governing interaction with other editors:

* Civility – Treat others as nicely as possible. This includes not ignoring their comments and not talking down to them. This also encourages you to make sure people remain civil and remind them if they are not.
* No legal threats – Legal threats should not be directed to people on Wikipedia or mentioned on Wikipedia.
* No personal attacks – We are here to build an Encyclopedia, so please don't attack other people with words or in any other manner.

Two more policies fall into this subcategory of Policies:

* Bot policy – All automated bots should be approved and must be a separate account from the owner, and not harm Wikipedia.
* Wheel war (Admins only) – Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion.

1.2 Content and style

Content and style policies talk about what type of articles are allowed in Wikipedia, and what has to be maintained in the articles.

These are Wikipedia's three core content policies. Together, they set the standard for what should be in Wikipedia's articles. They should be viewed as parts of a whole and not separate. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

* Neutral point of view – Every article must give all significant views of the topic equal weight without favoring one or the other.
* No original research – Wikipedia does not publish original thoughts, and is not the place to establish new ideas.
* Verifiability – Any material that might be reasonably questioned should be attributed to a reliable source.

Two policies based on content apply to two specific subsets of articles:

* Attack pages – Any page that is made to do nothing but disparage its subject should be tagged with {{attack}} and be deleted immediately.
* Biographies of living people – Because information posted in a person's biography can be hurtful, great care must be taken to remove any statements that do not meet the three core principles listed above.

The final two policies in this category are:

* Naming conventions – Article titles should use the most common name in ordinary English.
* What Wikipedia is not – A list of many things for which Wikipedia should not be used.

1.3 Deletion

The Deletion policies govern what articles should be deleted and what process they have to go through in order to be deleted. They allow for four methods of deletion: Articles for Deletion, two of the methods of deletion listed below and copyright violation, which can fall under speedy deletion. Deletion Review is also established under this policy, which allows for the undeletion of articles that were deleted incorrectly.

* Speedy Deletion – If a page meets any of the criteria on the listed policy page, then tag it with the appropriate template. An admin will look at it to see whether it meets the criteria; if it does, the admin will delete it.
* Proposed deletion – If you feel that nobody will disagree with deletion, but the situation doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, you can tag an article with {{subst:prod}}. If the tag isn't removed within five days, than the article can be deleted by an admin. If the tag is removed, then you have the option of proposing a deletion at Articles for Deletion.
* Category deletion policy – Governs how categories are deleted, either through Speedy Deletion or Categories for discussion.

The other two policies governing deletion deal with actions by the Wikimedia Foundation. These policies are when the Foundation is doing something for legal reasons or because of exceptional controversy:

* Office actions – The Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to delete any article without community input.
* Oversight – Edits in edit histories can be hidden from view of editors and admins.

1.4 Enforcing policies

Any system that has policies has to be able to enforce them in some way. Wikipedia is no different. The first two of these deal with how you work with other editors in order to decide how things work in Wikipedia:

* Consensus – Decisions agreed upon by community consensus should be respected and followed. Also of note: even though consensus once existed for something, that doesn't mean such a consensus will exist forever.
* Dispute resolution – The preferred method for solving problems dealing with articles is to talk about the content, and if that doesn't work, bring in an unrelated third party to help settle the problem.

If these methods of discussing the problems don't work and edit warring continues, there are policies that come into effect, in this approximate order:

* Protecting – Pages can be protected if parties are excessively edit warring on them or are being vandalized at a very high rate.
* Banning – Bans are different from blocks because bans are a formal revocation of editing privileges in a certain area of Wikipedia. A ban does not disable a user from editing a page, but is instead a simple social contract.
* Blocking – If a user is violating any policy, after they have been informed of the policy they broke, then they may be blocked from editing and have their editing privileges revoked.
* Arbitration Committee – The Arbitration Committee has the final say in behavioral disputes. They only rule on behavior issues and not content issues (i.e. whether Waterboarding is torture, or whether TV episode articles should exist in Wikipedia).

The final two methods, below, are extensions of the Blocking policy. They help to enforce the strength of blocks, so that they aren't avoided or misused:

* Appealing a block – If you feel that you have been blocked inappropriately, you may appeal your block by either using the {{unblock}} template, or by e-mailing the Unblock mailing list.
* Open proxies – The use of a proxy to evade an IP block is prohibited.

1.5 Legal and copyright

Copyright Policies come from The Laws of the United States of America and the State of Florida. All the policies listed below are extensions of the previous two listed:

* Copyright violations – Do not add anything to Wikipedia that you copied from somewhere else. if you find anything that is a Copyright violation, remove it on sight.
* Image use policy – If you use copyrighted images in an article, mention the source on the image page and make it as usable as possible
* Libel – All editors are responsible for making sure Wikipedia's content is not defamatory. When found, defamatory content should be deleted or removed on sight.
* Non-free content criteria – In cases where no free counterpart can be found, non-free content may be used if it meets the set criteria listed on the policy page.
* Reusing Wikipedia content – Information from Wikipedia can be reused if you credit all the authors, distribute it with the Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, and allow free access to it.

1.6 Global

There is only one policy that falls in this category, and it is impossible to summarize it, because it is already so succinct:

* Ignore all Rules – If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (Note: a tutorial discussing this policy in more detail is planned for a future issue.)

1.7 Further reading

* Wikipedia:List of policies – Links to all the policy pages with a brief description.
* Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset – The 42 rules, simplified.
* Wikipedia:Five pillars – The policies and guidelines summarized to explain the character of Wikipedia

I figure this is a good start to a discussion about Wikipedia. What are your opinions about it? If you have any questions about Wikipedia I would be more than happy to answer them as well. Rather then having Wikipedia trashed by people, I would have them informed about how it really works.

 

[Jenigmat]

I don't really buy into the argument that the Wikipedia is untrustworthy, though I think it's naive to assume that the Wikipedia is the end-all source of information. Of course, very few people will make that assertion, but when it comes to discussions about controversial topics, such as anything related to religion, then it becomes really clear that sources besides the Wikipedia are incredibly important. I've always felt that the best way of using the Wikipedia as a tool for general knowledge would be to first read articles about relevant topics, to acquaint myself with information. If I need a quick example for something, then looking at a Wikipedia article about it is useful. However, if I ever have to use this information in any setting where justification is required, be it posting in discussions here or in any sort of academic document, you almost certainly want to read the sources cited in the article you're reading. More often than not, they're easy to read, easy to cite, and most importantly they give your argument much better justification.

There's really not that much more to say, any source you use as justification for anything is going to be scrutinised, but the Wikipedia is certainly one of the better ways to make sure that at least you know the basics of the topic at hand.

 

[Luduan]

I think Wikipedia is a generally reliable source. Inaccuracy seems mostly confined to articles of less importance/interest, as fewer people pay attention to them. Its quality control standards are quite impressive for such a project, and its sheer volume of readily available aggregated information (and sourcing) on a vast variety of topics is indispensable.

 

[Shinryu]

Personally, I think quite a few of the mods on Wikipedia are idiots, but that's a different story...

I generally turn to Wikipedia if I need a brief overview of something, or some general information. Obviously, I try not to use it as a source, but I find it to be an acceptable one if I have to use it; I would generally think people work on Wikipedia in the spirit of helping to further knowledge, rather than the few who'd rather troll it and mess it up. Really, I think it's no worse than your random internet article by a "authoritative" source; fuck, I could write a paper on the glories of communism or something under a fake name, throw it up on a seemingly legitimate website, and call myself an authoritative author. The old-school way some people go about wanting their sources from is just asinine.

 

[Bologo]

Personally, I think Wikipedia is just fine. The people who write the articles seem to get jumped on pretty quickly if they don't cite their sources or if their article is messy.

The fact that they have to cite their sources for pretty much every piece of information makes Wikipedia very trustworthy IMO, because it allows people to check those sources to see if the information is actually the same as the info in the article. With that, I don't trust any of the articles that didn't cite their sources, unless I absolutely cannot find anything else.

I kind of wonder though, is it really acceptable for university students to be using Wikipedia as a source in their research assignments? And is one allowed to use the sources given by the Wikipedia article as some of their sources too?

 

[Joatmon]

Generally when I research things, I go to wikipedia simply for their works cited, as there are many useful ones more often than not.

 

[Force Majeure]

Since I got into college, I've found that the best part is the works cited section since it usually has really good sources that I can use without the prof. giving me a zero.

 

[RBG]

To be honest, most teachers I have met say not to cite wikipedia, but usually the main reason given is that you aren't supposed to cite encyclopedias. Wikipedia links many sources in its articles that are much better alternatives to actually using the articles themselves as sources.

Another thing that I failed to mention, which should be something that people should note, is that looking at the talk page of an article usually helps tell how good of an article it is. Most articles have an article grade listed on the Talk Page so that can be used to determine how accurate the article you are viewing is. That is, if all the "citation needed" and "This article lacks NPOV" don't already tell you that an article isn't the best to use.

 

[Luduan]

I kind of wonder though, is it really acceptable for university students to be using Wikipedia as a source in their research assignments?

I am fairly sure that a good number of universities prohibit use of Wikipedia as a source (and Wikipedia itself counsels against it), which seems perfectly reasonable. You should easily be able to verify the information it provides anyway.

And is one allowed to use the sources given by the Wikipedia article as some of their sources too?

Given that most of the sources are news articles, government reports, academic books, etc., not allowing them would disqualify practically every possible source.

 

[Flounder]

Wikipedia is a great tool, and anyone who denies that should do their research (no pun intended).

Schools and the like will generally ban Wikipedia from use because although there are so many policies to keep it accurate and reliable, un-cited and unreliable information can and will be posted. It's generally better to go to the sources themselves. Out of personal experience, I haven't been allowed to use Wikipedia since 8th grade and my teachers adamantly state that no future teacher, particularly college professors will accept it.

The school's reasoning seems to be based on the belief that Wikipedia is maintained by renegade internet-using college students who know nothing. While that's entirely false, most school administrations have much more to worry about than the reliability of internet sources.

If it's something about pop-culture (music, movies, etc.), Wikipedia is much more reliable. You're not getting the information for anything formal. So if you need to know what the name of the third album released by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Wikipedia's a great resource.

 

[lati0s]

I find that Wikipedia is a reliable source the vast majority of the time, I understand that, as an encyclopedia it may not be a scholarly source, but the way teachers seem to think it is filled with lies is quite ridiculous

 

[viperGTS]

Most of the time sources are listed to show where the info came from, what's the worry?

 

[B-Lulz]

I use Wikipedia to look up points of interest (for me usually Chemistry related, i've made many a shoddy alt on a trip to Wikipedia). There are better sources but generally Wikipedia is alright. It really depends on the page and how much of a hot topic it is. Encyclopedia Drammatica is infinitely better lol.

 

[Morm]

last I heard, wikipedia had fewer instances of wrongness than encylopedia Britannica on the articles that have been revised and given a work over; that's kind of key though, you have to look at the references and usually when there is some sort of effort put into it, it's good.

 

[foibles]

I'm pretty sure that for anything non-controversial (see George Bush, etc) Wikipedia is one of the best places on the web to go for information. It tends to be very up to date and almost always has excellent information, although I do like to cross-check it when I'm doing work.

 

[Virtuoso]

Wikipedia is most definitely a great source for information.

But still I hear people at my school, whenever Wiki is brought up, say, "Oh, I edited this page one time and they never changed it, lolololololol."

There is quality control on Wikipedia, with all those damn articles it just takes a second or two. I swear people think that you can just go around randomly editing crap on that site. This is what ignorant people must think a Wikipedia page looks like:

Thomas Edison was born in PoopJuice, Uranus, and layed out the schematics of what would later become the modern vibrator. It is said that he once castrated a cow with his bare hands. CLASS OF '09!!!

Like in previous posts, I mostly use the works cited part of a Wiki page. None of my teachers allow the citing of Wikipedia in projects, so you have to find ways around it.

 

[Cathy]

Wikipedia is just as trustworthy as any other encyclopaedia. That is, as trustworthy as the sources it cites. The reason you don't cite an encyclopaedia in a paper is that an encyclopaedia is merely an aggregation of sources. For research purposes, you should be procuring the individual sources instead.

 

[Goodbar]

I've spotted minor errors occasionally in articles, I think it's an easy source to look to but I wouldn't look to it if I needed 100% certainty (unless a source was directly cited so I could look at that source). One time for whatever reason I was viewing the Rush page and it said that Geddy Lee had died that day and the fact remained for at least half a day, it broke my little heart :(

 

[StarmanXL]

Personally, I find Wikipedia pretty legit, and only sometimes does it seem suspect (like my high school's wiki entry, which listed one of our head faculty's dog as assistant principal for the longest, haha), but I usually go through the sources listed when I'm doing research. I also used to use this great scholarly journal database through our public library but I can't anymore since they canceled my card due to excessive fines.

 

[Carl]

Wikipedia is a great starting point for any topic you need to know something more about. Usually the major facts are correct and if they aren't, the article at least brought your attention to something to verify or research further which can get the ball rolling for whatever information you were looking for in the first place. It's very useful to be able to find the gist of virtually any topic on one site. Then you know what to look for in terms of real sources.

 

[Firestorm]

last I heard, wikipedia had fewer instances of wrongness than encylopedia Britannica on the articles that have been revised and given a work over; that's kind of key though, you have to look at the references and usually when there is some sort of effort put into it, it's good.

Was about to mention this too. And it's great to see Smogonites know how to use Wikipedia effectively. I too use Wikipedia for an overview and then follow the sources for further research and citing in papers.

 

[boltscore]

Most of the time sources are listed to show where the info came from, what's the worry?

As others have said it basically uses information from a bunch of other sources

And so experts get all wound up when they aren't being given credit for something that was done with the information they compiled (and if that first explanation is ignored, they can just go back to saying that they're right and the fairly normal people who edit Wikipedia don't know what they're talking about)

I find that to be at least half the reason bibliographies are mandatory for pretty much any relatively important assignment in school

 

[Trax]

I trust it when I trust the sources.

 

[Shinryu]

To be honest, most teachers I have met say not to cite wikipedia, but usually the main reason given is that you aren't supposed to cite encyclopedias. Wikipedia links many sources in its articles that are much better alternatives to actually using the articles themselves as sources.

Another thing that I failed to mention, which should be something that people should note, is that looking at the talk page of an article usually helps tell how good of an article it is. Most articles have an article grade listed on the Talk Page so that can be used to determine how accurate the article you are viewing is. That is, if all the "citation needed" and "This article lacks NPOV" don't already tell you that an article isn't the best to use.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but why are encyclopedias not allowed as a source by most places? I mean, I've personally never tried using one, but I am rather curious as to the reasoning behind it. Seems stupid to me, as encyclopedias are basically big old books with facts/knowledge in them, aren't they?

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

I think the problem with using encyclopedias as sources is that the general information in encyclopedias is TOO general. That's what's I'm getting from my brief travels through Google. Even Wikipedia recommends not using encyclopedias as sources.

I don't remember what the specific backlash is against Wikipedia, though. So there were a few F's given because of citing Wikipedia articles that turned out to be wrong. So? Do some people think that Wikipedia is more like Encyclopedia Dramatica? I hope not...

That said, I'll echo the sentiments to look at the sources for each article instead of the article itself.