An ‘Independent Web Advice’ Blog

Wikipedia errors and accuracy

There has been a lot of criticism of the Wikipedia lately, suprisingly from some of the top management there. They claim that the wikipedia is broken beyond repair and full of inaccuracies. I would like to make a few points about this.

1) The Wikipedia is not a source of news and should not be considered ‘up to date’.

2) The wikipedia is not a commercial body, so relies on voluntary editors and members to add material. As in all big groups there are some rotten apples that want to spam or upload nonsense just for the fun of it. These people will always exist.

3) The wikipedia is STILL a fantastic resource for research. However every adult should realise that you cannot rely on one source of information. If the wikipedia says Chess began in the 11th Century, that is the opinion of the author, not a fact. Never rely on one source.

4) I read the wikipedia for fun, it is fascinating. If students, researchers or businesses want factual information that has been peer reviewed commercially, then you should buy a magazine, subscribe to a journal or read actual research papers as they are released by historians, scientists and journalists the world over. There are many fabulous resources, but none of which are free.

Finally, if the inaccuracies (minor or major) really are a problem for you, log in, join the relevant group and edit the bloody thing. That is the whole point of the wikipedia. We are all the authors. Us, the general public, anyone is welcome. Join, add your 2 penneth and correct any errors you spot. (The only way to beat spammers is together.)

To the complainers that bemoan the nature of the Wikipedia - I say you have failed to understand the nature of the beast. Stop criticising and help.

I suspect commercial interest is on the side of criticising the Wikipedia with the aim of bringing it into disrepute. Information is a commodity that is easily sold. The Wikipedia is about the FREE dissemination of knowledge for the betterment of all mankind. Good luck to it and it remains the single best example of the power of the web available anywhere today.

(In my humble opinion of course.)

Paul

Independent Web Advice

2 Responses to “Wikipedia errors and accuracy”

1. bultitude Says:
   April 24th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

   I’d be grateful if anyone could advise me as a total novice. I’m trying to post a Wikipedia article about a small comics company with the permission of the publisher but don’t know how to go about effectively NAMING the article so it can be Searched.

   The Wikipedia seems to demand a file-type in the titling field (the first field) but when I used an image file it created a prefix of IMAGE: preceding the title I entered in the next field.

   Elementary as it may sound I simply don’t understand how to overcome this and if anyone could advise me I shall be incredibly effusive in thanks! Best regards,

   Bultitude

2. paul Says:
   April 27th, 2007 at 11:41 pm

   Hi, have emailed you following your query. Before I post a complete answer I must admit that I have not actually ever started an article. I have never found a topic not already covered.

   I would be intrigued to know your topic and article title.

   This weekend I shall start a new article (if I can find a topic not already started). Best of luck.

   Paul

Leave a Reply