Wikipedia Bashing

[jeebusjones]

Discussing certain matters on a web forum such as this often require a link to an outside source. Wikipedia is a very convenient and comprehensive source for a variety of topics. I've quoted information from Wikipedia on several occasions, only to get comments like "Wikipedia is the online equivalent of my mate at the bar told me so..."

I highly disagree. I think Wikipedia is an excellent and reliable source of information. While sometimes there may be small mistakes, intentionally or otherwise, they are usually found and corrected very quickly.

So to those out there who don't trust the accuracy of Wikipedia, I have a challenge. Take a look at Wikipedia's article about Thailand, and try to find one substantial mistake. I would love to be proven wrong here, because if it is inaccurate I should stop reading it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand

[Mossfinn]

I find Wiki a mine of information, I also find the Wiki bashing a little unfortunate, but I think a lot of the scepticism belongs to the fact that anybody can edit the information, but as you say they do try and correct the misinformation in quick time if they know about it.

Moss

[Jingthing]

I agree with you. Wikipedia articles though not perfect are quite often quite excellent, and largely accurate. It is easy, lazy, and fashionable to dismiss references to Wikipedia sources on the source alone. It would be real work to point out the exact items in Wikipedia that you have objections to. In other words, just saying you are wrong because your refer to Wikipedia is not a good argument. In such cases, be more specific -- what in the exact article is wrong and what is your source for saying it is wrong.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Jingthing

[Johpa]

I am a big fan of Wikipedia. Yes, one can find inaccuracies here and there. But one can find those same types of inaccuracies in both academic and poopular literature. But once can access a treasuretrove of information, and I do distinguish between information and knowledge, at ones fingertops. If you are a history geek like myself, Wikipedia can become quite additive.

But I do wish someone would correct the entry under "Shan" where it states that the Shan are known by the Thais up north as Thai noi (lesser Thais) instead of the correct term Thai yai (greater Thais).

[meadish_sweetball]

This subject really belongs in the Internet forum, so I am moving it there.

I have found the quality of the information varies greatly. In one case, my belief that the article stated the truth (in this case zoology and common names for fishes), led me to pass on erroneous information.

Also, some subjects are clearly manipulated or mainly written by people with a vested interest in them, such as those outlining the benefits of various herbal remedies that have not been tested scientifically. It requires a very discerning and critical reader's eye, which can be tiring.

Fully agree that it works well as a general reference and orientation about many subjects, but it's important to stress that individual facts can be completely wrong. So the error rate is probably higher than with classical dictionaries, but then again, Wikipedia also provides information on such a multitude of subjects that you have to take the good with the bad.

It's a great resource in general, but just be extra careful with double-checking facts before you use them for something.

[cdnvic]

"Wikipedia is the online equivalent of my mate at the bar told me so..."

Wikipedia is the online equivalent of a million people waiting to correct your mate at the bar if he attempts to bullshit.

Oh what quiet bars we'd have.

[katana]

I like Wikipedia too. Found some great and varied info there.

[Jet Gorgon]

Wikipedia is the used car salesman of Internet info, IMO. Sure, some of the info is correct, but alot is not verifiable nor correct. I NEVER use Wiki as a source and I get angry when it comes up as the first site when I'm searching for info. Anyone can post info on this site, so if Dorkface Jake wants to take a swipe at Jackas Frank, he can upload his info as if it is fact, when it is really an opinion. If something is noted as an opinion, that's allowed. Not for phoney facts. In my view, Wiki is always flashy but just as shoddy. We fought over this issue before! 555

[DrFisher]

I think Wikipedia is an excellent resource and I use it very often with my international classes as the articles can be translated to Thai, Chinese, Korean, Japanese as well as simplified English. Many of the Thai professors in my department contribute to Wikipedia and even translate some of the articles so they can be posted in Thai.

[yeti]

I'll take another example, still Thailand related: the Crown Property Bureau.

If you take the wikipedia page: Bureau of the Crown Property, you will see that this article is not exactly nice with this institution.

Now have a look at the external links at the bottom of the page, you will see 2: the official website and Asia Sentinel's website.

Oh surprise, wikipedia's article is just the summarized version of Asia's Sentinel page, with the same references.

I don't say that what's in this article is not true, just that I cannot trust the content in this case, because the "million people waiting to correct your mate at the bar" factor obviously did not work.

PS: I have defended wikipedia as a source here previously, and I still think the same: usually a very good base, that you need to investigate, just like you should investigate other sources.

[Tywais]

It's a great resource in general, but just be extra careful with double-checking facts before you use them for something.

I also find it useful and refer to it often but usually in the Science & Technology sectors. If the information I am looking for is critical then I will also cross reference to other material and not rely solely on the Wiki. Wiki is, as far as I know, peer reviewed and corrected and as such is self maintained but still prone to errors.

[cdnvic]

It's like anything open source. Anyone can modify it but there's a lot of eyes watching those modifications too. How long does it take to correct an error in a print encyclopedia?

[LivinLOS]

I'll take another example, still Thailand related: the Crown Property Bureau.

If you take the wikipedia page: Bureau of the Crown Property, you will see that this article is not exactly nice with this institution.

Now have a look at the external links at the bottom of the page, you will see 2: the official website and Asia Sentinel's website.

Oh surprise, wikipedia's article is just the summarized version of Asia's Sentinel page, with the same references.

I don't say that what's in this article is not true, just that I cannot trust the content in this case, because the "million people waiting to correct your mate at the bar" factor obviously did not work.

However you have to consider that its a work in progress.. I personally would know nothing about the Crown Property Bureau at all yet at least there is the first few sets of opinions forming.. As more people see it and more opinions eveolve in correcting it, the page will start to resemble the collective belief.

Where I really think wikipedia runs into danger is when a large subset peoples belief of a historical event is twisted through media spin or propoganda.. They have the ability as a larger group to create a flase impression that then effects more peoples imnpression creating a false fact.. This is where the wisdom of crowds falls into the realms of extraordinary popular delusions.

[meadish_sweetball]

In retrospect, I may have been too quick moving this topic to the Internet and computers forum. It probably deserves wider attention.

[thedi]

It seems to me like the discussion 'Open source vs Microsoft'.

You either like it or hate it, depending on your believes.

Thedi

[jeebusjones]

Wikipedia is the used car salesman of Internet info, IMO. Sure, some of the info is correct, but alot is not verifiable nor correct. I NEVER use Wiki as a source and I get angry when it comes up as the first site when I'm searching for info. Anyone can post info on this site, so if Dorkface Jake wants to take a swipe at Jackas Frank, he can upload his info as if it is fact, when it is really an opinion. If something is noted as an opinion, that's allowed. Not for phoney facts. In my view, Wiki is always flashy but just as shoddy. We fought over this issue before! 555

You're quick to criticize, but you still haven't taken the challenge. Can you point out one substantial mistake in the Wikipedia article about Thailand?

(Actually, I suppose it would be possible for you to login, deliberately type a mistake in the article, than point it out here. However, the mistake would not be there tomorrow. So don't try it! )

[uptou]

i would like to think that wikipedia is great for reading about the lives of authors,movie stars etc,where real fans of these people (possibly nerds),keep correcting false information,& keep the info accurate.or at least i would hope so.

[A_Traveller]

For me wikipedia offers a speedy point of contact for information. I am sometimes surprised at the apparent depth of the articles and willingness of the contributors to shape the articles over time. Equally the insistence of citations within the format and the pressure from other contributors does ensure a balance.

The project itself has shown what is possible in a contributive form, yes there are those who will abuse this freedom, but these are both rare and are winnowed out, often a very short space of time.

Real howling factual errors are unusual, typos allowing, and I've only come across a handful in my time using it. These were corrected within minutes. There is another point and that is that is aspects of knowledge are made available to a wider audience {I think of aspects of complexity} which it has been shown will start individuals on a more focused search for information.

On balance then a great source of citations and summaries. In some areas, especially technical, often as good as any text book, in areas of social conflict a snapshot of the present turbulence.

Still think it is of value to post as a link in discussions here, though I don't recall doing so, if only to offer the multiple citations.

Regards

PS anyone who identifies an error of fact can amend, that's the whole point, to critique is all very well, but why not become part of the community and reduce errors, though your edits are then subject to review.

/edit add PS//

Edited May 28, 2007 by A_Traveller

[Fred Sanford]

I love wiki

[John_Rambo]

Had to laugh the other day when i saw the following tagged on the end of the economy section of the wikepedia entry for Thailand....

'Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP'

I can just imagine some guy getting all indignant about the recent visa rule changes, and full of his own self importance tagging that on the end of a section that is talking in figures about the contribution of agriculture, industry and tourism.

Come on guys own up, which one of you was it? LOL

[ThaiGoon]

Had to laugh the other day when i saw the following tagged on the end of the economy section of the wikepedia entry for Thailand....

'Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP'

I can just imagine some guy getting all indignant about the recent visa rule changes, and full of his own self importance tagging that on the end of a section that is talking in figures about the contribution of agriculture, industry and tourism.

Come on guys own up, which one of you was it? LOL

[h90]

searched about the tschetschenia (spelling???)-russian war on wikipedia and found two very different informations.

So it might be excellent for technical terms, but very new political things might be a terrible quality.

I didn't check for Thaksin, but I can imagine that every 15 min supporter or hater change the facts....

[A_Traveller]

searched about the tschetschenia (spelling???)-russian war on wikipedia and found two very different informations.

So it might be excellent for technical terms, but very new political things might be a terrible quality.

I didn't check for Thaksin, but I can imagine that every 15 min supporter or hater change the facts....

And that, in my view is it's strength. The evolutionary process of articles development and submission creates a turbulent result. So long as one is aware of this and uses critical faculties the information provided is of value.

Regards

[Furbie]

Had to laugh the other day when i saw the following tagged on the end of the economy section of the wikepedia entry for Thailand....

'Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP'

I can just imagine some guy getting all indignant about the recent visa rule changes, and full of his own self importance tagging that on the end of a section that is talking in figures about the contribution of agriculture, industry and tourism.

Come on guys own up, which one of you was it? LOL

It was not me, but I happen to agree with it. Long term ex-pats, especially those who bring in earnings from outside of Thailand, make a significant contribution to the Thai economy. While I might not go so far as to say heavy contribution, even the poorest English teacher in Thailand makes 5-6 times the average Thai wage earner.

[think_too_mut]

A team of scientists was engaged to check on errors in both Wikipedia and Britannica. They used a set of facts on animals and plants and compared the two sources.

As expected, Britanicca won, with 80 errors. Wikipedia had 150.

Internally, Britannica must had been shocked they had any errors at all.

[John_Rambo]

Had to laugh the other day when i saw the following tagged on the end of the economy section of the wikepedia entry for Thailand....

'Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP'

I can just imagine some guy getting all indignant about the recent visa rule changes, and full of his own self importance tagging that on the end of a section that is talking in figures about the contribution of agriculture, industry and tourism.

Come on guys own up, which one of you was it? LOL

It was not me, but I happen to agree with it. Long term ex-pats, especially those who bring in earnings from outside of Thailand, make a significant contribution to the Thai economy. While I might not go so far as to say heavy contribution, even the poorest English teacher in Thailand makes 5-6 times the average Thai wage earner.

If you wouldn't go as far as to say 'heavy contribution', then in fact you don't agree with it, do you? Compared to the contribution of agriculture, various substantial industries and tourism, surely it's not that significant at all, and tourism only accounts for about 5%. And what does significant mean? Is a reduction in the number of long term foreign residents going to bring about another economic crisis? I don't think so, so in fact not that significant or 'heavy' at all, really, when you are talking about the GDP.

And as for the significant contribution of English teachers to the Thai GDP, LOL, give me a break!

Edited May 28, 2007 by John_Rambo

[A_Traveller]

A team of scientists was engaged to check on errors in both Wikipedia and Britannica. They used a set of facts on animals and plants and compared the two sources.

As expected, Britanicca won, with 80 errors. Wikipedia had 150.

Internally, Britannica must had been shocked they had any errors at all.

Hm,, a citation for that please.

There was a analysis of both Wikipedia and Britannica undertaken by Nature which showed the two to be much closer. This led to Britannica issuing a corporate defence document and changing some entries, as did Wikipedia. There is an element of comparing apples with oranges here though.

=====================================================================

From BBC Report

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

======================================================================

Cite

BBC News Report

Britannica Response

Regards

[think_too_mut]

A team of scientists was engaged to check on errors in both Wikipedia and Britannica. They used a set of facts on animals and plants and compared the two sources.

As expected, Britanicca won, with 80 errors. Wikipedia had 150.

Internally, Britannica must had been shocked they had any errors at all.

Hm,, a citation for that please.

There was a analysis of both Wikipedia and Britannica undertaken by Nature which showed the two to be much closer. This led to Britannica issuing a corporate defence document and changing some entries, as did Wikipedia. There is an element of comparing apples with oranges here though.

=====================================================================

From BBC Report

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

======================================================================

Cite

BBC News Report

Britannica Response

Regards

I read it in the Economist last year, can't remember who they quoted or if it were the same thing as BBCs.

Now, with the numbers that you supplied, my post will look like this:

A team of scientists was engaged to check on errors in both Wikipedia and Britannica. They used a set of facts on animals and plants and compared the two sources.

As expected, Britanicca won, with 123 errors. Wikipedia had 162.

Internally, Britannica must had been shocked they had any errors at all.

Did it change the point?

Edited May 28, 2007 by think_too_mut

[A_Traveller]

A team of scientists was engaged to check on errors in both Wikipedia and Britannica. They used a set of facts on animals and plants and compared the two sources.

As expected, Britanicca won, with 80 errors. Wikipedia had 150.

Internally, Britannica must had been shocked they had any errors at all.

Hm,, a citation for that please.

There was a analysis of both Wikipedia and Britannica undertaken by Nature which showed the two to be much closer. This led to Britannica issuing a corporate defence document and changing some entries, as did Wikipedia. There is an element of comparing apples with oranges here though.

=====================================================================

From BBC Report

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

======================================================================

Cite

BBC News Report

Britannica Response

Regards

Thank you for confirming with exact numbers what I was quoting from memory. Now, with numbers that you supplied, my post will sound as:

A team of scientists was engaged to check on errors in both Wikipedia and Britannica. They used a set of facts on animals and plants and compared the two sources.

As expected, Britanicca won, with 123 errors. Wikipedia had 162.

Internally, Britannica must had been shocked they had any errors at all.

Did it change the point?

Hate long quotes, but :-

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

That is the correct point, also rate of divergence is lower.

Regards

[kayo]

I haven't read all of the replies on here, but here's my two baht to the O.P

I think that some of the people who've regularly used internet, not only email, saw Wiki in its early days, when frankly it was a crock of sh2te in terms of verifiable info.

As internet 2.0 has grown however, and more and more people contribute to sites like Wiki, the info has become increasingly verified and increasingly controlled. Most of the bull sh1t gets filtered out - eventually, purely due to the number of users.

I think that now, and increasingly in the future, it is a great resource, I use it a lot. I would mention though, that for anything official, it should only be used as an initial source of information or research, not as a final one.