Can Wiki be trusted? Seems not.

[Thems Fighting Words]

Wiki can't be trusted? The internet may contain misleading or false information? If the internet's validity is suspect, mayhaps my martial arts net courses and registration as ultra-shogun ninja super master may also lack validty? TELL ME IT'S NOT SO! :mst:

 

[Rich Parsons]

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

Granted he should've come forward a wee bit earlier but he made a great point about how mis-information can be quickly distributed and taken for facts.
Showing that news media will under the crunch of deadlines will just take anything and publish it.
Also showing how easy it is to manipulate the people with something and get what you want from it, i.e. Gulf of Tonkin incident http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261.
Yet again did even THIS event actually happen?

I do rely upon wiki to find more information but I do not 100% trust it without at least spending a few minutes looking at other sources that either corroborate or substantiate the article in Wiki. Still I do know the adage of "don't believe everything you hear and only half of what you read" needs to be applied to the net as well as everything else.

Discuss?

The article I read, stated he gave Wiki a pass as they noticed no citations and removed it within the same day. But that did not stop press from copying it and more press from copying off of the press until BAM everyone has it wrong.

 

[Xue Sheng]

HEY!!

About 12 years ago a story made it into some rather reputable papers about woman with larger chest and the amount of sexual activity they were involved in and it was allegedly from a major scientific study. It was a hoax and it got buy the papers and they usually check things. So why is something slipping past Wiki all that big a dealand/or that surprising.

 

[thardey]

The article I read, stated he gave Wiki a pass as they noticed no citations and removed it within the same day. But that did not stop press from copying it and more press from copying off of the press until BAM everyone has it wrong.

So what would have happened if he had reposted it using one of the faulty newspapers as the source?

(I feel like I'm moving into a source-feedback loop after watching too much Star Trek.)
:spock:

 

[matt.m]

For general overview stuff I like wikipedia. However, knowing what I do of Won-Kwang Wha and his importance and role in hapkido but his info being stripped from wiki by who knows is just ridiculous.

 

[Big Don]

Like Reagan, whom Elder quoted: "Trust but Verify"
Many whitewashings of wikipedia articles have been alleged and some have doubtlessly occurred. Like Matt mentioned, it is handy for a general overview until you have the time to go to good sources.

 

[arnisador]

So what would have happened if he had reposted it using one of the faulty newspapers as the source?

LOL! Heh, that would've satisfied their "reliable source" rules, I think!

 

[arnisador]

However, knowing what I do of Won-Kwang Wha and his importance and role in hapkido but his info being stripped from wiki by who knows is just ridiculous.

The TKD history there is pure mythology too--the Koreancentric view is jealously guarded by some editors.

 

[CoryKS]

This guy makes the argument that Wiki's architecture makes it easier to correct bugs like these than in the MSM. We know about this error because the author of it admitted to the fabrication, and we can see from the history of the page that the editors had removed it twice. Would we know of such errors if they originated in the NYT? Jayson Blair is infamous for pulling articles out of orifices.

One of the things that Wikipedia does far better than journalism — apart from having “many eyes” to make its bugs shallow, is that it maintains a lineage of its information. For example, the version history of the entry on Maurice Jarre is shown on this page. By treating edits like a database transaction log (which in fact it is), and thereby tracking inserts, edits and deletes, you can ‘play back’ the evolution of a piece of information just like a movie. You can restore to any point in time. This tremendously powerful feature makes Wikipedia, for all its defects architecturally better than the press. You can not only see the hoax entry come and go, it is possible to see how the Wikipedia editors dealt with it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

So what would have happened if he had reposted it using one of the faulty newspapers as the source?

(I feel like I'm moving into a source-feedback loop after watching too much Star Trek.)
:spock:

Wiki did their job.

It was the PRESS that was lazy and jumped all over it.

It was the press quoting each other and off the AP et al.

My point is that WIKI did respond in a very reasonable amount of time. As all college professors I know say, use WIKI to get an over view, but before you use the information check the sources and then use the sources sited as your source.

The circular argument as you stated is used by many and cannot be stopped completely. I have seen people post here or other sites and then go back and reference those posts later as data or valid sources for their arguments. Some call this the long game. Others play it shorter, but use different ID's.

My point is that if I wrote a paper and only quoted WIKI I would be hung out to dry. The Press quotes it and gets it wrong and now it is WIKI's fault. This is classic transfer of responsibility.