Agnostic.com

13 12

I know that Wikipedia is a controversial source of information. There are people who screw with content. There are editors who fix the content, rather quickly. One morning I looked up something about the Higgs Boson, I thought none had been discovered, but this time it said the LHC at Cern had found something, and it was the same day as they found it. That means, someone at Cern posted to Wikipedia almost immediately after they found the Higgs Boson. It can be very up-to-date.

Today, I found a problem with another post, in which the public are arguing with the Editors that the editors are posting incorrect and possibly libelous content. They are calling for the editor to be fired.

Usually, Wikipedia content is good enough for my purposes. It is not a citation source, except for non scientific communications, and it is always suspect. For that reason it provides a window on the human condition, and the ability of people to think critically. The meta-information is top quality.

EdEarl 8 May 30
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

You could always use Conservapedia
[conservapedia.com]

Wikipedia is an aggregator of information. Everything in it is supposed to originate from some place else. You should always cite original sources. I don't understand this criticism of Wikipedia. There are some academics that think they are the ordained gatekeepers of information. Screw them. I've heard of companies that horde research, and to access it, you have to pay a lot of money for it. Screw that. Information that has already been paid for, especially from public funds, should be freely available. We should have a system to make this so. Computers and the Internet has made it much cheaper to disseminate information. Where ever possible, information should be available to everyone, as cheaply as possible. We don't need gatekeepers.

And we don't need liars, like Conservapedia.

In general, it's not the academics who want papers behind pay walls. It is the corporations who benefit form the research. Many PhDs are employees with little or no right to their own intellectual property.

1

Confirmation from other sources is usually best. I was listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson yesterday in an older YouTube video talking about how Wikipedia listed him as Atheist, and he denied it and said he is Agnostic. He said that he has never given up what he was before in any of his speeches or lectures or appearances on any shows, but people interpreted what he said apparently as him being an Atheist.

Neil Tyson is one of my favorite science communicators. He did a great job in Cosmos.

3

I always suggest to my students to not use wikipedia as a cited source - BUT i do tell them to use it to search the general idea or concept - and then to scroll to the bottom and see what sources the article cites as there are generally hyperlinks to those. They are worth it as a starting point.

Good idea

0

Could have a one sided source like the one in the link describes, where all views are neatly cleaned to be in line.
[en.wikipedia.org]

1

If I recall correctly Lisa Randall was the first person outside of CERN who was informed that the Higgs Boson had been confirmed. I suppose thou aren't fond of its alternate name either.

Wikipedia has come a long way in terms of reliability in the last decade or so. Content is no longer open for editing by any user. There are still mistakes, but the site has become a lot more reliable and its sources are actually credible.

JimG Level 8 May 30, 2018

It's good they no longer allow anyone to edit.

IDK who was first to know, and my reading about it on Wikipedia the same day it occurred did not mean I was first to know anything. Cern is in Europe and I am in Texas, many hours asleep while people at Cern told others. It wasn't confirmed at that time, they'd just found the event.

@EdEarl I didn't try to imply that you were claiming to be first. I was joking that maybe she updated Wikipedia.

I meant they found a particle confirming the theory, not that they'd verified those findings yet.

@JimG Oh OK.

6

One morning I was joking with someone about Asphalta, goddess of parking spaces. I told the person that he should look it up on Wiki when he got to work as she was real in the Pagan religion. I quickly wrote a summary about her and it stayed up on Wiki for almost the whole day until someone got smart!

That's hilarious!

3

It's not perfect but it's the best thing we have at the moment. It would be helpful if scientific papers weren't hidden behind paywalls.

I agree, even though some are coming out, many are still hidden.

2

There was a big scandal about a right wing campaign to change Wikipedia recently. American politicians were suddenly angels and all traces of corruption removed.

The article I saw in which the Wikipedia editor seemed to be misinformed and making blatantly bad statements, made me wonder if the right has infiltrated their editorial staff. I know nothing, just a thought.

@EdEarl

Anyone can edit comments remotely if given access. So I think an army of astroturfers was employed by a right wing organisation. At least it was revealed.

@Ellatynemouth revealed by whom?

@EdEarl

The article I read was from a few years ago. I can't find it now, but here's a similar one:

[splcenter.org]

@Ellatynemouth Thanks, that's a good article on Wikipedia's editorial woes.

3

Unlike the Encyclopedia Britanica or the like, Wikipedia is not written by experts but represents the consensus opinion of non-experts.

I'm sure that's true of some subjects. Most of my meanderings have been in math and hard sciences, and I'm sure some experts had a hand in writing the things I've seen. And, the content has been accurate for the most part.

Written by experts and non-experts.

2

There have been studies done over the years, although many of them are older and covered Wikipedia when it was pretty new, and general reliability in Wiki articles is about the same as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
I'm an academic librarian and I touch on Wikipedia when I give bibliographic instruction to students. I advise them that Wikipedia is a RESOURCE but should never be used as a SOURCE. Good Wiki articles are going to have their own references that can be followed for potential source material.
With the tracking that many editors of Wikipedia use, I think the more scholarly stuff is going to be pretty accurate since changes are going to be monitored and reviewed fairly quickly. The more pop cultural/ non-academic type stuff might be more suspect since it might not be as closely watched.
I use Wikipedia for subjects I don't know much about, but if it's an important topic that I need strong, solid information, I'm gonna find a source that backs up whatever Wikipedia might say.

[zmescience.com]
[livescience.com]
[washingtonpost.com]

Thanks for your perspective.

2

There's a lot of very good science content on Wikipedia, take a look at the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project for example, a fantastic group run by a woman called Susan Gerbic whose aim is to improve skeptical content on there.

I'll read that.

2

More accurate than Facebook and trump. andaand amazing for everything that is in

You may edit

1

Except that I once tried to add information about the post war life of a magician, Jasper Maskelyn, the third in a line of famous magicians (His grandfather invented the magic rings - and the toilet door mechanism!)
I was then asked to quote sources, and replied that it was personal knowledge, because I knew him well. My mother had been his main stage assistant - and I even sent a showing them setting off on an overland tour from Kenya to South Africa and back in 1952. (I was 11 at the time, but I knew Jasper until I left Kenya in 1987)
It was not enough evidence, and my additions to his biography were removed. What do I have to? Write a book about him, then quote myself as the authoritative source?

There is a TALK button at the top of each page. You can ut your experiences there. If someone finds confirmation, they should put it in the main article. If not, your story is documented for all to read.

Since Wikipedia is written by non-experts and can be edited by anyone, they require that information must be verifiable in reliable published sources. Otherwise you're asking the world to just trust you...without even knowing who you are!

@cmadler But I offered photographic proof. And published sources, such as memoirs, are no different.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:94793
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.