25 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
25 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

What Keeps the Content on Wikipedia Accurate?

by x3xsolxdierx3x
21 replies
I'm sure many here are familiar with doing a Google search for a specific key phrase/keyword, and, Wikipedia has probably been one of the top served results....

How familiar is everyone here with Wikipedia and how it works? The reason I ask is...because....I'm not....

Besides doing IM, I also work work autistic children. During one of our sessions, one of the higher function children retreated to 'play on his computer'. When I checked up on him, he was editing a Wikipedia page, about Mario characters, and injecting his own made up characters.

With, I'm assuming, hundreds of thousands of pages of content, how does Wikipedia control for all the many people worldwide who might just decide to edit/alter a Wikipedia entry? Can just about anyone, expert or not, log on and do this?

Does Wikipedia have tens of thousands of people worldwide who monitor this? They do this free of charge?

....during college, they would tell us not to cite Wikipedia.....If it is prone to what appears to much so many inaccuracies, why is it given so much favor and authority by Google? Am I missing something?
#accurate #content #wikipedia
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    For that reason, Wikipedia is considered to only be 99% accurate. Trouble is, which 1% is mis-leading?
    Lol.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394127].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dika
    what keeps your country/city free from hooligans and criminals?
    the are always guards to protect commons, and there are always people who try to smash the guards
    BTW, governments also may tamper wikipedia: see digitaljournal.com/article/272513
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394160].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
    wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands of moderators. Some of those moderators are very heavy handed - if someone edits something on wikipedia that the moderator doe not like, its reverted. If the person edits it again, they might be banned from editing on wikipedia.

    I dont not consider wikipedia as a reliable source of information. If it was on a scale, maybe somewhere between 50% - 75% reliable.

    Some of the moderators at wikpedia seem push their own social agenda.

    Example, the .308 Winchester was developed by an American. But the measurements on wikipedia are in metric. America uses the standard system, not the metric, so "why" are the measurements in metric?

    My opinion - wikipedia is an "ok" source of information at best.

    Wikipedia does not allow original content to be published on its site. Everything ha to be published on other sites, and then cited in wikipedia.
    Signature
    Country Lifestyle Network
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394403].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by ~kev~ View Post

      Example, the .308 Winchester was developed by an American. But the measurements on wikipedia are in metric. America uses the standard system, not the metric, so "why" are the measurements in metric?
      I would expect because the person who entered them was a European. They do, after all, sell these outside of the US.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394675].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
    Wikipedia does not keep the content accurate - so I'm afraid your question is invalid.

    If you were to submit wikipedia as a source to any academic tutor or professional publisher then you will be at best laughed at.

    I could say a lot more - but I am working on restraint
    Signature

    I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394581].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NicoleBeckett
    I'm not sure what Wikipedia's deal is, but anything I see on there, I verify with other reliable sources.

    Here's why - at my old station, there was an anchor that no one liked, so a couple of employees decided to make a Wikipedia page for him and pretended that it was a fan who did it. The information on it was hilarious! (oh, and not true, BTW!) As far as I know, it never got taken down. That was a lesson enough for me to not take Wikipedia too seriously!
    Signature
    Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394606].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    Personally I think the "Encyclopedia Dramatica" website is more accurate than Wikipedia, and it's a site created by trolls.

    Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394611].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Example, the .308 Winchester was developed by an American. But the measurements on wikipedia are in metric. America uses the standard system, not the metric, so "why" are the measurements in metric?
      That may be because the rifles are now made outside the US - the original factory was shut down.

      I've visited many wiki pages where a warning about "unverified content" was at the top of the page. What keeps Wiki useful to me are the lists of links to sources that appear on so many of the pages.

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Live life like someone left the gate open
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394626].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author aquablue
      I had always assumed that Wikipedia's high rank was a result of new content constantly being added. Does Google really care if the information is technically accurate?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394639].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
        Originally Posted by aquablue View Post

        I had always assumed that Wikipedia's high rank was a result of new content constantly being added. Does Google really care if the information is technically accurate?
        That's the 'vibe' I'm getting from this thread....

        How could Wikipedia go about ensuring higher quality and accuracy?
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394655].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
        Originally Posted by aquablue View Post

        I had always assumed that Wikipedia's high rank was a result of new content constantly being added. Does Google really care if the information is technically accurate?
        Because the content on the site, for the most part, is moderated, Google assigns it greater authority than your average run of the mill blog. The same with article directories and other information websites, plus the usual ways it determines the authority of a website.

        Chris
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394660].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
          Originally Posted by skyfox7 View Post

          Because the content on the site, for the most part, is moderated, Google assigns it greater authority than your average run of the mill blog. The same with article directories and other information websites, plus the usual ways it determines the authority of a website.

          Chris
          Throughout college, while pursuing my BSN (Nursing), the professors continually harped on not citing Wikipedia as a valid and accurate source. Unfortunately, it's hard to say just how widespread and rampant these inaccuracies really are. I agree that it being moderated, in the first place, causes Google to look upon it more highly as an authority site.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394672].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
            I never take Wikipedia information as accurate but I do use it for research. I know that sounds contradictory but I will explain. The content itself I always consider suspect but almost all topics will have excellent citations. I go straight to those cited sources instead and that usually leads to some authoritative sources.

            Tina
            Signature
            Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
            Fast & Easy Content Creation
            ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394682].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author aquablue
              Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

              I never take Wikipedia information as accurate but I do use it for research. I know that sounds contradictory but I will explain. The content itself I always consider suspect but almost all topics will have excellent citations. I go straight to those cited sources instead and that usually leads to some authoritative sources.

              Tina
              Same here. I sometimes use it as a "starting point", so to speak, and check out the sources.

              I could be wrong, but didn't Wiki start out claiming that it's uniqueness lie in the fact that it was edited by its users?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394701].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
            Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

            Throughout college, while pursuing my BSN (Nursing), the professors continually harped on not citing Wikipedia as a valid and accurate source. Unfortunately, it's hard to say just how widespread and rampant these inaccuracies really are. I agree that it being moderated, in the first place, causes Google to look upon it more highly as an authority site.
            Conspiracy theorists would argue that because the founders of Google and Wikipedia are Zionists, there is a reason Google seems to like Wikipedia, despite the fact it cannot be cited for academic purposes for reasons already mentioned.

            If you read through a lot of the pages, you can easily spot the pages that have obviously been written by a PR company. Not to mention the selective moderation on some pages.

            Neil Strauss for example, is very controversial within the seduction community, his book, "The Game," which is largely fictionalized and a giant sales pitch for that "Mystery Method" stuff, has received MAJOR criticism within the community for a whole host of reasons, such as the fact he started teaching guys how to pick women up when he hadn't had any success with the MM teachings, yet it is not mentioned on Wikipedia, and anytime anybody tries mentioning these controversies on his wiki page, the edits get removed and the writer banned.

            Chris
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394713].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Shaleniie Devi
    I just finished my Bachelor's and I remember that throughout the entire course... the lecturers repeatedly drummed into us that Wikipedia is not a credible source and cannot be referenced in any assignment materials.

    Nevertheless there were the few who tried their luck and failed the papers instead. It's really tempting when the information you need is all in one place despite the credibility of the information... most people want the easy way out

    As for me, I usually checked out Wikipedia for an overview of what I need and then delved into the approved sources for what I needed referenced.

    I still do check out Wiki for stuff on celebrities etc... but nothing for serious work.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394628].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
    I'm not sure what, if anything, ensures that Wikipdeia has accurate information, but whatever it is, it doesn't work. I've encountered numerous inaccuracies there, ranging from birth dates, incorrect names, incorrect facts, etc. I do not ever cite Wikipedia as a resource. It's simply not reliable.

    RoD
    Signature
    "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
    - Jim Rohn
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394664].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aquablue
    Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post


    Besides doing IM, I also work work autistic children. During one of our sessions, one of the higher function children retreated to 'play on his computer'. When I checked up on him, he was editing a Wikipedia page, about Mario characters, and injecting his own made up characters.
    These are the types of anecdotes that appear in teachers' memoirs.
    you probably have quite a few. Are you writing them all down?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2394719].message }}

Trending Topics