[Closed] I love Wikipedia.

I like Wikipedia, but I always have in the back of my mind that it's edited by folk who sometimes have no business editing the pages, or have an agenda to edit pages to be less than neutral. So I generally treat it it with scepticism.

Like all the internet, some-one's agenda is being reflected back to you.

One of the reporters at the last paper created a superb Wiki page for himself that he used as evidence why you shouldn’t ever use it without checking an alternative source that hopefully didn’t rely on Wiki.

Do you (or did you) love it enough to [url= https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LandingPage&country=GB&uselang=en-gb&utm_medium=wmfSite&utm_source=fr-redir&utm_campaign=comms ]donate[/url] when it was in trouble?
I did, cos I'd hate to imagine it gone, in spite of the agenda related issues. I mean, that all depends what you're looking up. I find it quite bonkers that any (eg.) rugby player that comes in to your mind, you can look up their club history.
Or, of course, whatever else you're interested in - I love those charts of band member histories. eg. Dr Feelgood still existing but without one single original member of the band still in it.

Yeah, the breadth and depth in some things is astonishing, but in some other things, it's utterly woeful, (reflective I think of the sorts of folk who are willing to edit/create pages) and as eddiebaby says in some things it's downright lies.

Didn't donate...I'd rather the Web devised a way for folk to access good quality written reference material by people who're paid to research it well and comprehensively.

Do you (or did you) love it enough to donate when it was in trouble?

Yes, a couple times.

One of the reporters at the last paper created a superb Wiki page for himself that he used as evidence why you shouldn’t ever use it without checking an alternative source that hopefully didn’t rely on Wiki.

That's actually pretty poor evidence against the reliability of wikipedia. For a start they've set out to deceive and most wikipedia contributors don't and if they do they tend to get pulled up. Plus, who's going to care enough about some obscure journo to fact check and alter their page but many of the pages receive exactly that on a regular basis. It's also usually pretty obvious which pages are biased or opinion based and they have systems in place to flag that. It's not perfect but it's pretty good and perfect accuracy in this regard isn't really a thing anyway.

I’d rather the Web devised a way for folk to access good quality written reference material by people who’re paid to research it well and comprehensively.

Firstly, I'll not be holding my breath for that and secondly I'm not convinced it would be any better.

Edit. Long boring piece from old guy removed. TLDW (too long, didn't write.).

I’d rather the Web devised a way for folk to access good quality written reference material by people who’re paid to research it well and comprehensively.

Can't beat a good bike review eh? I must get one of those Sick Bikes everyone was raving about.

I donate every year, I thought about it and there's not many websites I use as often or find as interesting or helpful. There's also the fact you don't get pop ups etc which is nice.

I like Wikipedia, but I always have in the back of my mind that it’s edited by folk who sometimes have no business editing the pages, or have an agenda to edit pages to be less than neutral. So I generally treat it it with scepticism.

It depends on the subject. Studies have been done on this and on science subjects it comes out more accurate and reliable than print encyclopedias, because of the larger number of people working on it and their ability to refine the pages. And because they are scientists.

Where it gets worse is on small pages with low interest. People can basically write whatever. And on some small historical topics e.g. history of some obscure area they are clearly written by one person who is politically motivated. But print encyclopedias can be subject to this too.

I donate every year too, it indulges my curiosity and helps me out multiple times per week, pretty fantastic VFM IMO. Ok it can potentially be abused but because anyone can have a say it also means anyone can call it out too and you can look at the history of the piece to see which points have been contested. Surely very few other reference materials are that democratic? I just think back to the Encarta95 of my childhood and marvel at how much better wikipedia is...

It's a useful place to start, but you need to follow up on the references if you're going to cite it for anything important.

Twas in a different lifetime, but a mate and I got really pissed up one night and engaged in a bit of Wikivandalism using my neighbour's unsecured wifi. There is a well-known celebrity that we both despise, so we copied and pasted some preposterous stuff from a different celebrity's Wiki page, kinda like if you said that Billy Joel was a founding member of Pink Floyd. It was harmless nonsense, but we were curious to see how long it would take to get noticed and fixed. We assumed hours or days on the basis that the extremely wealthy celebrity would have an assistant whose job it was to monitor stuff like that and that the original page was probably written by one of his staff.

Anyway, the next afternoon we woke up with thumping hangovers and were impressed that it was still there. It stayed up for weeks before an editor noticed it and reverted it back. But, that editor was a bit of an obsessive **** and was in a bunch of nasty, petty fights with other editors, so he got banned shortly afterwards and all his reversions got rolled back. So our (harmless) vandalism stayed up for months before it finally got reverted.

We assumed that would be the end of the matter, but then my mate noticed that the vandalized bits had got translated across to the Dutch page for that celebrity, so they lived on for years.

I've made some serious contributions to some pages related to things I do in my job and pop back to check that once a month or so. There have been some silly editing wars over details (an analogy would be whether an e-bike should be classified as a bicycle or a motorbike), but it mostly seems to be people genuinely wanting to do a good job. However, I would only recommend that page to someone as an introduction to the topic and a source of references to follow up on for more details. It would be pretty foolish to rely on Wikipedia for anything important.

Surely very few other reference materials are that democratic?

Frankly I don't give a toss about how democratic it is, I'd rather it was accurate.

Studies have been done on this and on science subjects it comes out more accurate

Again, for stuff that is popular (or has a group of folk willing to give free-time to up date it) it can be an invaluable resource, however like most "popular" resources it can be woeful on more obscure stuff.

The rule round these parts is that "It is on Wikipedia, so it must be true. Or it will be in five minutes".

TL;DR: Use, but verify

Saying you can't trust Wikipedia is 100% boomer.

It contains live reference links on every page to verify your information - try that with your Encyclopedia Brittanica. Also, to "having an agenda", you under estimate the rampant bias and imperialism of entries in traditional and historical Western encyclopedias! Anyone thinking the entry on "Apartheid" in a 1970s reference book would stand the test of time?

Wikipedia is a marvel.

Saying you can’t trust Wikipedia is 100% boomer.

There was a joke entry on the Spanish Inquisition page for ages, just the addition of a little sentence at the end of the opening paragraph to the effect "...and nobody expected it" You have to be probably British, male and of a certain age (or nerdiness) to get the reference. I'd say the opposite of what you assert. the Boomers are still trying to control the info you see. Look up Ester Sowernam for instance, and get back to us with your research.

Wikipedia is a marvel.

Yes, for some "things" I'd say it's pretty robust, for "People" less so; especially (to the great surprise of no-one) women , and for some things like "ideas" or things for which there's obvious political influence, it can be pretty pointless or unreliable. Yes you can look up references, but those aren't verified or checked, or controlled by any standards/auditing committees, or independent researchers.

try that with your Encyclopedia Brittanica

I've never actually laid hands on one, but my understanding is that they commissioned acknowledged experts to work on the entries so there should have been a paper trail of sources.

Some topics, like mathematics or physics, rely much less on human judgment of things, whereas others, like history, are inherently value-laden. I'm sure that most historians try hard to be honest and balanced and check the reliability of sources, but deciding what to include or exclude requires value judgments. A historian who worked in Europe in the mid 20th century would probably find it very difficult not to see WW2 and the holocaust as a bigger deal than the Vietnam war, whereas younger non-Europeans might think that decolonization was the major event of the 30th century. I'm pretty sure Encyclopedia Brittanica would reflect those different priorities.

I’ve never actually laid hands on one, but my understanding is that they commissioned acknowledged experts to work on the entries so there should have been a paper trail of sources.

Of course, but David Starkey was an acknowledged expert in history, I'm not sure you'd view his research in the same way now that you would have 12 months ago, paper trail or no.

I’d rather the Web devised a way for folk to access good quality written reference material by people who’re paid to research it well and comprehensively.

So you won't pay for Wikipedia because you think people should be paid to do the work they do for Wikipedia?

[Insert firefly gif]

On subjects I know anything about it's excellent. On people I know anything about less so, you read what they want you to read. Science, geography, geology, history are great.

David Starkey was an acknowledged expert in history, I’m not sure you’d view his research in the same way now that you would have 12 months ago, paper trail or no.

I mentioned history because it's a very problematic subject. A lot of it is heavily disputed and historical figures' motivations are often difficult to interpret. A lot of Wikipedia pages are locked down because of those problems - should Churchill be remembered primarily as a racist imperialist or as a leader who rallied democracies to defeat the Nazis?

Some people love to rag on Wikipedia but IMHO the problem lies with the reader.

Most claims on Wikipedia are fact-checked, backed up with sources and references. The ones that aren't, you should treat with a critical eye. Just like everything else anyone tells you regardless of medium. If you believe everything you read without further question, that's not Wikipedia's failing.

Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's more accurate and non-partisan than many.

Oh, and if you have a problem with "down the rabbit hole" websites, stay away from https://tvtropes.org/

I mentioned history because...

Oh I don't disagree, my point though is not dissimilar to your 2nd paragraph (only without the time travel 😉) the paper trail and expertise does nothing to offset a personal agenda of the author. Wiki is no worse than Enc. Brit. from that perspective, arguably the democratisation of it makes it better by allowing multiple different agenda that a single author (or small fairly homogeneous group) won't effectively represent.

Of course there are pitfalls to the same but that's fairly inevitable and no different from the above mentioned apartheid example.

So you won’t pay for Wikipedia because you think people should be paid to do the work they do for Wikipedia?

no, pay people to do research. Fund it by putting that research on the internet for all to see supported either by advertising or subscription.

that’s not the Wikipedia model, which is “any old nonsense can get thrown up, it might get corrected ,might not, who knows...”

no, pay people to do research. Fund it by putting that research on the internet for all to see supported either by advertising

Because that's a flawless model with zero problems. That already exists and gives us things like "study [paid for by the international butter marketing quango] shows butter is good for you."

no, pay people to do research. Fund it by putting that research on the internet for all to see supported... ...subscription

A model which already exists through various journals, archiving and portal services.

Those things don't need a "Web devised" solution, they're already there, they just need [more] people to pay for them.

At one point according to Wiki the sax solo on Baker St was either Bob Holness or a random busker found outside the studio. Barbie’s first husband was the A&R guy from the label having discovered Raffety and Connolley. My mate Betsy’s husband Hugh was the producer.
I knew who the sax player was. But no, it was on Wiki as someone different.

When you stare into the void sometimes the void stares back.

I like it and have donated to it (also donated to archive.org). The test I apply is "is this a subject about which people have strong opinions or might wish to present their view as definitive?" I'm usually looking for information to help me understand science, engineering or technology, not history and politics.

Strange how, amongst all the positivity for Wiki, there's one dissenting voice. Must be all of us that don't get it eh?

rely much less on human judgment of things

You're so right mathematicians are never madder than a box of frogs with their own agendas...

At one point according to Wiki the sax solo on Baker St was either Bob Holness or a random busker found outside the studio. Barbie’s first husband was the A&R guy from the label having discovered Raffety and Connolley. My mate Betsy’s husband Hugh was the producer.
I knew who the sax player was. But no, it was on Wiki as someone different.

[Citation needed]

It's a fantastic tool. It's not the only tool you ever need, and if you use it wrong it's probably your fault. Basically it's the multitool of the internet and most complaints about it are along the same lines as "I tried to change a car wheel with my Topeak Hexus and now it's broken" or "It's supposed to be a multi tool but it's completely useless at digging potatoes", but also "I used this to tighten a stem bolt and it worked great, therefore it's the only tool I ever need"

Google directs me there a lot on slightly more taxing questions which I find a little annoying as I assume Google pays wiki nothing?

That said, if they did then they have the ability to potentially try influencing its content... Hmmm.

[Citation needed]

Edit: source anon.

there’s one dissenting voice

don't be so hard on yourself

Arf!

I think wikipedia is one of mankind's greatest achievements.

In my experience people who think it's bad are under the impression that it should be some kind of infallible canon of truth.

I like it too and always bung them a few quid when they ask.