Wikipedia

[ronstew]

Orion was bright last night, and I noticed that the upper left corner was strkingly red. Wikipedia told me that the star in question is Betelgeuse, about 430 light years away, with a radius similar to the distance between the sun and Mars or Jupiter.

Good enough for me.

If you worry about the veracity of a particular article, read the discussion page. You will find out quickly whether the editors are passionate or knowledgeable.

[Erisianmonkey]

The three things that one must do with any information resource is verify, verify, and verify! I have no problem with wikipedia and use it often. But if I am looking for accurate information I look for other sources. I do the same for any resource, be it historical books on figures in literature (speaking as an ex-English major) or psychology articles (speaking as a current psych major). One thing I have found with wikipedia that tops it over some other resources is the reference section. I often use the reference section on a wiki and bypass the article entirely.

[Nanook]

Also, Wikipedia can only get more accurate as more people (and more knowledgeable people) contribute. But as long as people are complaining about it rather than fixing it, it's only going to be as good as the willingness of the community to stop whining about it and make a positive change. After all, it's not as if it's hard to alter.

More does not mean better. Wikipedia is not "peer reviewed" and has no standards of review beyond the collective "ego" of the "knowledgeable people" (anyone) that edit or create content. There is no mechanism to see what is written is reasonable and much is not. There is, unfortunately, little means to distinguish "hogwash" from "good content". Like hearsay and gossip there is often a bit of truth but a lot of noise thrown in. Time and again I see incorrect information from popular web sites used as gospel for Wikipedia. While there is a lot of good information in Wikipedia hardly a topic is not flawed. Worse still Wikipedia's success has brought the "instant" culture into the class room. Many school children--- and unfortunately also their teachers--- it seems don't go beyond Wikipedia and so the skills of research (despite the increased and widespread availability of online tools and interfaces to the world's libraries and archives) seem to be in rapid decline.

[Mike1]

Then there's the fact that it's completely free. What should we expect from a free resource? Short answer - nothing, because it's free!

And as we all know, free doesn't generally indicate the quality of anything, but rather the lack of it. I have learned that free information is often worth its own price.

Since that time, how many times have I needed to open the Britannica for more detailed and more certain info? Not once. Draw your own conclusions.

If you are aware that you have "more detailed and more certain info" available for your research and you prefer not to use it, the conclusion is easily drawn.

Also, Wikipedia can only get more accurate as more people (and more knowledgeable people) contribute.

Which goes without saying, no question. But when someone with my knowledge is able to edit an article that is outside my realm of knowledge, then Wikipedia will always be suspect. As you stated above, there are "more detailed and more certain" reference materials available.

Since this discussion has nothing to do with the wearing of a kilt, I am moving it to Off Topic.

[Beery]

More does not mean better. Wikipedia is not "peer reviewed" and has no standards of review beyond the collective "ego" of the "knowledgeable people" (anyone) that edit or create content. There is no mechanism to see what is written is reasonable and much is not. There is, unfortunately, little means to distinguish "hogwash" from "good content"...

This is also the case with well-regarded news reports, peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals and any information source there is, from the BBC and the Encyclopedia Britannica to Joe Bloggs, the crazed hobo who lives in a service station public bathroom and who broadcasts his musings via loudspeaker at passing freeway traffic.

Peer reviews and other mechanisms to ensure reasonableness often do no such thing and are in fact just as likely to skew facts to suit an agenda (whether the agenda is conscious or subconscious) as uninformed people are likely to skew facts based on ignorance. The fact is, EVERY information source (not just Wikipedia) ought to be looked at with healthy skepticism. Wikipedia is no worse than any other source - in fact it's better in the sense that it doesn't have some self-proclaimed 'expert' claiming that the info is 'authoritative' or 'peer-reviewed' as if those things mean that the authors have acquired a higher level of 'truthiness'. A group of people with degrees from Harvard, Priceton, Yale and Cambridge can still make mistakes in their chosen field of study. Authority is no guarantor of accuracy and anyone who cites authority as conveying accuracy is trying (whether consciously or subconsciously) to fool you.

My point is that Wikipedia is an easy target for unfair criticism. The criticism is unfair because the criticism levelled at it - that it's unreliable - is potentially true of every single info source known to humankind. That's why it's the READER (not the writer of an article) who ALWAYS has the ultimate responsibility to cross-check facts if he requires a greater level of certainty and accuracy. This is the case whether the info comes from Wikipedia or from the New York Times, or from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Beery]

...If you are aware that you have "more detailed and more certain info" available for your research and you prefer not to use it, the conclusion is easily drawn...

Why should I need more detailed info when I don't need the info to be that detailed? If all I need to know - just to serve my curiosity - is that John Lydon is a punk rock singer I can get that info and more from Wikipedia, and since I'm just curious I really don't need to cross-check it because it really doesn't matter if the info is completely wrong. On the other hand if I'm writing a paper for a college course on punk rock and I need to know his exact birthdate and the date he joined the Sex Pistols I'll get out my Britannica. But even if I get the info from Britannica I'll still be best-served if I check with another source because Britannica can get things wrong too. I'd be best served by getting a copy of Lydon's birth certificate - but even those can be wrong.

If you trust any single information source, however well-regarded that source is, you're setting yourself up for error and disappointment. There is no ultimate objective and reliable source for data. They are ALL prone to error or spin. Those who think otherwise are fooling themselves far more than they can be fooled by the odd bad piece of Wikipedia info.

[Caradoc]

If you trust any single information source, however well-regarded that source is, you're setting yourself up for error and disappointment.

Exactly.

And anyone who complains about Wikipedia's inaccuracies while failing to make their own updates/changes is also failing to see the bigger picture.

[katmills2005]

It boils down to, don't trust everything you read. Problem is, many believe that what they read is fact.

I do a lot of research on various topics. I rarely read from Wikipedia, but when I do I use it as a frame of reference and look for other sources. I've seen far too many articles with inaccurate information and misleading statements. One of these in particular was rather dangerous since it offered information on a particular herb and its medicinal qualities but failed to mention that an overdose would be deadly.

Read, research and ask questions... Never take any one site or source as the soul authority on any one topic you are serious about.

[Captain]

I think the big question is... did you change the article about the herb to reflect the danger it posed?

[katmills2005]

Yes I did, however there is no way to know how many people may have read that thinking belladonna would make a good home remedy pain killer.