Yesterday's UK tabloid newspaper 'The Independent' ran an interesting full page article on Wikipedia. Here are a few observations from the article:-
Wikipedia has only one full time staff member, plus thousands of part time devotee contributors.
Wikipedia contains over 5 million topics, making it the world's largest encyclopaedia, and last month it was accessed by over 33 million people.
There is no Editor-in-chief, but 3,800 editor-users make about 100 edits/each per month, and a further 18,000 make at least five edits/monthly. Mamy other entries and edits are made randomly by vast numbers of occasional contributors, and anyone can edit any entry.
Many articles are extremely biased, especially those on Islam, Israel, and various religious sects such as Scientology. New entries, which may be accurate or non-controversial, are often edited and altered by fanatics.
PR organisations frequently add self-aggrandisement entries on behalf of clients.
There are malicious hoaxes, bogus claims, vandalism of existing entries, etc, though - according to Wikipedia - most entry vandalism is reverted within five minutes!
One of Wikipedia's founders, Larry Sanger, has announced the launch of a Wikipedia sin-off, to be called 'Citizendium', which will have financial backing and a team of full time experts to scrutinise submissions.
(all the above are taken directly from 'The Independent' article of Wednesday 18th October)

Quote:

---

Many articles are extremely biased, especially those on Islam, Israel, and various religious sects such as Scientology.

---

It seems to me that these are areas where the the Independent itself is likely to have problems avoiding bias and sometimes perhaps even 'extreme' bias - which is hardly surprising. I readily concede that the 'Wiki' principle works best where there is broad consensus and that it isn't well suited to topics as controversial as these.

Wiki is a website with full of statistics, excellent, however, i agree that using it for everything is not a good idea.

The 'Independent' article is actually very well balanced and gives both pro's and con's of Wikipedia, and I consider I've quoted both too. The biased entries referred to are easily detected, and quickly amended. Problem is they can be amended back again, and non-biased entries can just as easily be changed into biased entries.
Most subscribers are just looking for facts on non-controversial subjects, and Wikipedia is as good as anywhere else at providing these.

This Wikipedia article claims that England and Norway are - would you believe it? - theocracies. Well, that's news to me!

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

At first the article refers to theorcatic aspects, but later it says this:

Quote:

---

England, and therefore the United Kingdom is a Christian Theocracy.

---

I am fond of the Wiki and refer to it for almost all general information.

One thing I particularly enjoy about the Wiki is it's real time updates. For example, when Steve Erwin died, an entry was added under 'Stingrays' within hours of the tragedy.

It is true that anyone that registers can edit the Wiki, however there is a system of checks and balances to prevent vandalism and inaccurate information.

It is quick, easy and free to use. What more could you ask for?

I am not allowed to use Wikipedia as a resource for research papers, since anyone can edit articles or post articles. But I have found it useful for movie or book articles-such as looking up the parodies in Mel Brook's films.

I have found that I am referring to it quite a bit nowadays as it seems to cover all the bases of any given subject matter. I still go to Google first, but that's because I have the Google toolbar on my desktop and it's convenient. What, if anything, does WIKI mean anyway?

Quote:

---

I am not allowed to use Wikipedia as a resource for research papers ...

---

IndieQueen made a similar point. However, it's surely very unusual indeed to quote from an encyclopedia (other than, perhaps, a subject-specific reference work) in an academic or scientific paper. For example, it would never have occurred to me as a student to cite a general encyclopedia such as Britannica.

Even when reading in preparation for an essay or paper I generally went to a subject-specific work if I wanted to find out more about something.

According to this report there are claims that the CIA and a whole host of other organizations have been merrily messing around with some entries in Wikipedia!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

I absolutely love Wiki, and I use it for most assignments I get. I usually cross reference with another sourse though, generally a book or another website.

I generally use it for nature information, particularly birds, as a starter reference. It suits my needs very well and if I want more depth or to enlarge or double check on particular details I use other sources and/or my own reference books.
As with anything printed of course one has to question biases and agendas and not take any information as the final word. The beauty of wiki is that amendments can happen any time.. without the concerns of editor policy, publisher's audience etcetera etcetera.. problems that plague the production of new editions of hard copy books. Indeed it could be quite fun to revisit a contraversial area to spot the shifts in presentation.. you get the story from more than one side.

I guess the accuracy would vary from subject to subject, depending on who is or has been working on the articles in question. I've contributed several things to the Bionic Wiki, and there are people there who watch the accuracy like hawks, along with calling anyone on any perceived bias.

I haven't used wik much so I don't know a lot about it. I have googled subjects and it took me to wikipedia. It seems like it is a very good information source.

Personally I love Wikipedia. I think one has to be careful with online things, but it seems they tend to keep it up to date and always ask for corrections and keep them up quite well.

This is why I don't accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for anything, including quizzes.

Quote:

---

PM's staff sanitise Wikipedia
Friday Aug 24 09:09 AEST
The prime minister's staff have been editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the government.

Staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made 126 edits on subjects ranging from the children overboard affair to the Treasurer Peter Costello, Fairfax reports.

A new website - Wikiscanner - traces the digital fingerprints of those who make changes to entries in the online encyclopedia.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230729

---

With an election coming up, John Howard is desperate to remove anything negative about himself or his party. He is content to try to rewrite history and eliminate little details like the fact that he got elected on a lie years ago. (Does "I will never introduce GST" ring a bell?)

Extract from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald website:

WikiScanner removes much of the anonymity Wikipedia contributors have long enjoyed by tracing the unique digital fingerprint left by everybody who uses Wikipedia. It has helped uncover self-serving contributions from hundreds of sources, including the CIA, the Vatican, the Republican Party, the United Nations, the US Senate and the US Democratic Party's congressional campaign committee.

"My intention was to create a massive fireworks display of public relations disasters for all the world to sit back and enjoy," WikiScanner's creator, Virgil Griffith, told the Herald.

While it cannot identify individuals, WikiScanner can pinpoint the organisation whose computer network was used to make an edit.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/pms-wikipedia-whiteout/2007/08/23/1187462441687.html?page=2

Like every resource, Wikipedia has it's niche, and I do refer to it regularly.

It's a great place to pick up a general impression of whatever you are researching, and can be a good kicking-off position for further research. No, it's not 100% reliable, yes, individuals use it as their very public soap-box, yes it's open to abuse, but in my opinion that's the downfall of the whole internet, and I'm as wary of information from any other internet resource as I am of Wiki data.

I love it, it settles a lot of disputes about topics between myself and my husband. Sometimes we both go running for the computer to see who is right. Yes, we are nerds.

Mostly the flaws I have found in Wiki were insignificant, but what I like is that it usually provides some pretty good links to cross reference by and it is just amazing what you can find there.

I heard a story on NPR that they did a comprehensive study of its accuracy as compared to Brittanica and several other reputable encyclopedias, and IT WAS JUST AS ACCURATE on average as those well-known and trusted brands. Once I heard that, I have trusted it ever since, and have never been steered wrong.

Uh oh, then I'm a nerd too. I think maybe we're just intellectually curious which is a good thing.

Did you know there is a site now called CONSERVAPEDIA where "conservatives" actually write their own "version" of the truth.

If you want a good laugh, go on that site, and look up things like "creationism", "homosexuality" or "George Bush" or "Bill Clinton". Its completely ridiculous! Then they actually lock the articles so they can't be edited by anyone who wants to correct something.

The idea that there is some other version of the truth is just outrageous.

I turn to wikipedia for well written information on video games or other media that is hard to find elsewhere. I find it to be credible and well monitored.

Uncyclopedia is ridiculous and almost hard to understand. At the same time, it can be entertaining.