Wikipedia as a Source of Information

[Time for change]

I have noticed that there are many people, both in and outside of DU, who exhibit a sort of condescending attitude towards the use of Wikipedia as an information source. One DUer for example, during the course of my argument with him, responded to my use of a Wikipedia reference with a comment along the lines of “Wikipedia! ha ha”.

To the contrary, I have found Wikipedia to often be a useful source of information. In some respects it has important advantages over most other sources of information. That is not to say that its information is always correct or that there are not usually other sources of more informative information on a given topic. But the idea of discounting or mocking information simply because it came from Wikipedia is ridiculous.

In this post I will try to counteract what I see as some of the prejudices against Wikipedia as a source of information, by first describing how and why I use it, and then discussing some of its advantages over most other sources of information. Lastly, I will describe what I see as its most important limitation.


My use of Wikipedia when posting DU articles

Statements made in Wikipedia articles can be classified into three categories with respect to references: 1) those backed up with on-line references; 2) those backed up with references that are not available on-line – such as from a book; and 3) those backed up by no references (in which case it will usually be accompanied by the notation “needs reference”).

I generally use links to reference my factual statements in my DU articles (OPs), and sometimes my links are to Wikipedia articles. I do that when I believe that the Wikipedia article is the best reference I have found. But I rarely if ever link to a Wikipedia article if the information that I am referencing from Wikipedia is backed up by an on-line source, because in that case it is almost always preferable to link to the original on-line source. However, if the Wikipedia information that I wish to reference is backed up by a source that is not on-line or by no reference at all, then I will link to the Wikipedia article.

Other than using Wikipedia as a direct reference source, I sometimes find it useful as a starting point to lead to other information. Since there are so many different editors that typically contribute to a single Wikipedia article, their articles often give a very good broad overview of current thinking on the subject, along with numerous references.


Advantages that Wikipedia articles generally have over most other information sources

Keep in mind when I speak of these “advantages”, that doesn’t imply that better sources may not exist. My use of the word “advantage” is general, is relative to most other sources of information, and may not apply at all for some articles:

Verifiability
One of the major principles that Wikipedia uses is “verifiability”. Wikipedia policy states that “Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed”.

That of course begs the question, what is a “reliable source”? Here is some of what Wikipedia says about “reliable sources”:

Articles should be based upon reliable published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Some DUers will object that so-called mainstream newspapers, for example, are not reliable sources. That is often a valid point – a point that I myself have often made. However, almost everyone who writes articles, including us on DU, quotes from mainstream newspapers when we believe it is useful to our article to do so. At least the reader knows where the quote came from and can check it out further if he or she wishes to do so.

Why do I say that this verification process represents an advantage over most (though certainly not all) other information sources? It is simply that most articles that I read on the Internet or newspapers or magazines (or watch on TV) back up less of their factual statements with references than what I generally find on Wikipedia. If anyone disagrees with that statement I would like to hear it.

Neutral point of view
A so-called “neutral point of view” is of course very difficult to define. Here are some of the relevant points that Wikipedia makes about it:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view… The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one…. The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints…. Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view…. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why… Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) – what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.

If this description of “neutral point of view” is not perfectly clear, that is because this is a very complex subject. I believe that the key words and phrases in this description are “fairly”, “undue weight”, and “bias”. But these too are words and phrases that can be very difficult to agree on.

For example, since I am a liberal it is possible or even likely that most people would consider my writing to be biased in a liberal direction. Yet, I try to write from a neutral point of view by clearly differentiating the facts that I present from my opinions, and by documenting what I consider to be facts. Part of my liberal thinking includes my belief that most U.S. military interventions are unjustified and that poor people generally deserve better in life than what they have. I sometimes state those beliefs as opinions, but I also often try to back up those opinions with documented facts. Does that mean that my writing is not “fair”, gives “undue weight” to the value of avoiding war, or is biased towards poor people? I don’t think that it does, but I’m sure that many would disagree.

Anyhow, the good thing about Wikipedia’s policy of “neutral point of view” is that it gives us a good idea of the prevalent points of view on an issue, and it also means that the Wikipedia editors are forced to be very careful about sticking to the facts and omitting their own opinions from their writing. When I’m researching a topic I generally just want to know the facts and don’t care much about the personal opinions of the sources.

The “work in progress” principle and consensus
Part of the source of the condescension that some people show for Wikipedia is based on the fact that there are so many editors involved in many or most of their articles. This can create somewhat of a chaotic process, and usually results in articles being changed from time to time. Some people see this as a process that results in serious flaws in Wikipedia articles. But I look at it as an advantage rather than as a flaw.

The “work in progress” principle
How can we have confidence in an article that could say something very different tomorrow and might have said something very different yesterday? Well, consider it a self-corrective process. Most articles never change their content. That means that if there are flaws in them, those flaws stay there. But Wikipedia has a process for correcting flaws. Here is what Wikipedia says about that:

One of the great advantages of wikis is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can, over time, evolve into masterpieces through collaborative editing. Wikipedia is a reference work, but it is also perpetually a work in progress.

Why is it a good thing for something to be a “work in progress”? It is simply that most articles are finished when they are written and therefore have no chance for improvement. Many articles are excellent to begin with and therefore are not in need of much improvement. That applies to some Wikipedia articles as well as to some other articles. But at least with Wikipedia articles there is a built in process for removing flaws over time.

Consensus
Additionally, the facts that Wikipedia articles are worked on by numerous editors and that they use the consensus process provide additional safeguards for ensuring that articles are accurate. Here is part of what they say about the “consensus” process:

Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others, and part of the Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing… Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons… Consensus is not simple agreement… Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered… in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views.

Consensus is a process. It is not simply a matter of taking the average view and using that as the “truth”. For example, consider 100 editors trying to work out a consensus on how many Iraqis have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Suppose that the initial average estimate of the ten people is 50,000, with one person believing the true number to be 1.2 million. Obtaining consensus involves discussion and argument. If that one editor has more convincing information than the 99 others, the eventual consensus could end up at 1.2 million, rather than with the initial average. That is why the consensus process often results in better information than what people could arrive at individually, even when a very “reputable” editor makes all the decisions.

The actual Wikipedia article on the subject of Iraqi war deaths presents several different estimates. Included in those estimates are the statement, “In December 2005 President Bush said there were 30,000 Iraqi dead”, as well as the results and methods of several studies, some which demonstrated totals of over a million deaths. The reader can read in Wikipedia how the various estimates were obtained or look up the original sources and develop his or her own opinions.


My opinion of the biggest limitation of the Wikipedia process

Perhaps the most important limitation of the Wikipedia process is a result of its insistence on sticking to so-called “reliable” sources. Of course it’s good to have a process in place for ensuring accurate information. But how does one determine if a source is “reliable? Wikipedia does have guidelines for that, but are those guidelines sufficient? For example, is there sufficient awareness of the bias inherent in our corporate owned news media? I don’t believe there is, though I can’t prove that. Wikipedia says that self-published books may be acceptable as references if written by “established experts”. But what about the corporate bias in determining who are “established experts”?

If you really want to determine the validity of a source, there are in many cases more important considerations than the so-called reputation of the source. As an epidemiologist, I have often participated in the review process of submitted manuscripts, and I can say without hesitation that one can often find better articles in obscure medical journals than in the most “reputable” ones. There are many considerations that go into determining the validity of a scientific (or any other) article, it takes a lot of time to consider all the relevant issues, and perhaps the Wikipedia editors don’t usually do that.

Consider the issue of the 9/11 attacks as an example. To their credit, the Wikipedia editors do mention that there are conspiracy theories that challenge the accepted version of events. But in my opinion that part of the Wikipedia article on the subject gives the alternative versions very short shrift (but let’s not discuss that here, since I don’t want to see this post go to the dungeon). Perhaps that’s because of too much emphasis on maintaining a “neutral point of view” or accepting only “reliable” sources.


Summary

In summary, I often find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource, and I believe that the condescending attitude that some people show towards it is misplaced. It is meticulous about documenting its sources, it sticks to the facts and strives to clearly label opinions as opinions, and it has processes in place to achieve objectivity and avoid bias.

I look at the fact that numerous editors are used for individual articles as a strength rather than as a weakness. So-called “reputable” sources of information use much fewer editors, who are often highly paid and “professional”. But consider who pays them and what biases might be involved in that fact. I would take numerous unpaid, non-professional editors any day over a single professional editor who is paid by a corporation whose financial interests may interfere with its ability (or motivation) to evaluate and present information in an unbiased manner.

The validity of Wikipedia articles is limited by some of the same factors that interfere with the validity of any articles, including the difficulties of determining what constitute “reliable” sources of information. Most important, there may be too much emphasis on relying on corporate or government propaganda in making those determinations.

[bbinacan]

1. I love Wikipedia n/t

[uppityperson]

2. Sometimes wiki can be a good starting place, to find other references at.

Other times, not so good. I like to use it if it has references to other legitimate sources.

[mckara]

67. That Makes It Invaluable to Me, Too

Especially when looking for book titles by specific authors!

Many of the articles that I refer to are historical in nature and taken directly from the 1910 or 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica!

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Wikip*dia!? It's filled with facts!

The thing I find fascinating about wikis are the "talk" pages and the history pages.

For me, wikis are more like databases linking info and images and links to the greater internets tube.

Where Wikip*dia stays with more "fact-based" general knowledge content, wikis can range from <http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Star Wars> and <http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Portal:Main Star Trek> to <http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Muppet_Wiki Muppets> and <http://www.wikiality.com/Main_Page Truthiness>.

People who participate try to make the pages as detailed as possible making them great places to start research on virtually any subject.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. The right wingers don't like the facts being allowed to interfere with their own story,

their narrative. They're used to having their narrative "centre right" in the MSM; and Wikipedia and the Internet hurt.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. It's odd how GOPers push their agenda on Wikip*dia ...

... it's great how Wikip*dia adapted to combat it as well.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

4. Whatever turns people on or off but the value of a source is its credibility with opinions or

unsupported assertions dead last and highest value to studies that have been replicated and survived peer criticism.

I've found that wikipedia is an excellent starting point with links to useful material and from them to better material, and sometimes to a mother-lode of information.

What amuses me is fields that are very subjective but add "science" to their title to make "X science" appear more credible than it deserves.

What really gets my attention are reports improperly using statistical methods for data that is inherently nominal.

That's like going into a pasture with bulls, picking up an Angus patty and labeling it "1", labeling a Brahman patty "2", a Charolais patty "3", and labeling a Dulong' patty "4", then saying the average patty is "2.5" to which I reply "no, it's bull shit".

[Towlie]

5. Wikipedia is a great source of answers but it can't be used to prove anything.

[Atman]

8. Exactly. If XX percent of the information isn't accurate, it pollutes 100% of the info.

That's the issue. Sure, lots of Wikipedia articles are completely factual. But when you KNOW the site can be edited and completely biased information substituted for researched and verified facts, how can you trust the veracity of ANYTHING on the site?

Old-school encyclopedia's had/have teams of researchers and fact-checkers, and they understand the importance of accuracy. If you couldn't trust Comptons or Funk & Wagnalls or Britannica, no one would pay for them. But no one pays for Wiki, so it's like, yeah, you get what you pay for.

If I were a teacher and one of my students handed in a research paper which relied on Wikipedia in any way, I'd immediately reduce the grade on that paper.

.

[Time for change]

9. What sources of information do you have 100% confidence in?

Confidence in an information source should never be based solely, or even primarily in many cases, on what the source is, but on the details of how the information was obtained. It needs to be evaluated individually, on a case by case basis.

[RandomThoughts]

39. Bingo!

Chosing a text book, with a publisher bias, a study funded by a bias source, or an official information source, has the same flaws as wiki, it can not be assumed to be accurate.

But I can read wiki, check other references listed there, check it against other experiances or articles I have seen, and give it some value.

Being able to treat wiki as an information souce, may just be saying that you understand no information source is 100%

I link to wiki, and assume the readers would do the work to check information or bias, as they should with MSM and paid for studies.

However one of the bad things when linking to wiki is it is not static, so when linking you assume someone wont go and change the information, there by changing your arguement, I think it would be nice if you could link to a date of a wiki page. So you can link to it in the state you read it, since that is the information you are sharing with the link.

The link would have to show it as a dated page if updated after or before. On some wiki pages you can actually learn alot just by going back and looking at how things have been changed over time, thereby finding the points of contridiction in the data.

[Time for change]

46. Good points

One thing I would add is that no on-line source can necessarily be considered to be static. They can be changed at any time -- for example, as we recently heard the pre-election Obama campaign website has been changed to delete some positions that it no longer holds.

[RandomThoughts]

55. Very true, If the owners of a wiki page

wanted to edit a history, they could, but average people would be limited to adding a new revision.

There is a real societal problem that comes from online data, and the indexing of that data.

If something is published in a million books, it is hard to change. If it is stored on 100 servers that are then accessed by millions of people, that same information becomes unprotectable.

If storage of lets say online books ever consolidated down to a group that had a similar ideology, and did not care about changing information. If they had no moral objection to it, a single group or organization could remove ideas that are counter to there own in all copies of books or texts.

When I hear about real book libraries losing funding, it makes me cringe. The best protection of information is non central storage or access, and hard copy libraries are a great way to do this.

[Jim Lane]

50. How to link to a static version of a Wikipedia page

You write, "I think it would be nice if you could link to a date of a wiki page. So you can link to it in the state you read it, since that is the information you are sharing with the link."

Can do!

While reading a Wikipedia article, click on the "History" or "Page history" tab. You'll see a list of every revision to the article. Click on the date/time identification of the current version, the one on the top line -- or, for that matter, any earlier version that you prefer. The URL that appears in your browser window is a stable link to that version. If you cut and paste that URL, your link will be to that specific version (which will display with the date and time of the edit that was most recent when that version was the current one).

By contrast, a URL that uses only the article title, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground for example, will link to whatever version is current when a reader clicks on that link.

[RandomThoughts]

53. Thanks,

That makes sense, hadn't thought about trying to do that. :)

[NuttyFluffers]

44. the source that i can take to court for damages.

can i take the people who edited wiki at any particular time to court? does Wiki have IP# time stamped and compiled for any lawsuit i need to create? yeah, didn't think so.

sources can have bias, flaws, even falsehoods. but it's their -- author's, editor's, publisher's, et al. -- ass if their stuff causes me damages. so i may not have 100% confidence in the source's information being the Sole Truth (tm), but i do have 100% confidence in the tangible identity and reputation of a source i can nail to the wall when the need arises. what recourse do i have against Wiki? complain against anonymous that screwed with my research at Sunday, May 10th, 2009 between 5:00 and 5:05PM?

would you trust your own research if anonymous people could mess with your data at any random time?

in most lines of work the answer is 'no.'

[Time for change]

47. You make some good points there, but it's more complicated than that

It is obvious reading Wikipedia instructions to its editors that it is concerned about lawsuits, as it gives advice on how to avoid them.

I don't see how you can have 100% confidence in a source just because it has a "reputation" with an identify that you can "nail to the wall" as the need arises. Our first amendment gives journalists a lot of leeway in avoiding lawsuits. So, are you saying that you have 100% confidence in what you hear on FOX News, cimply because they have a tangible identity?

And it is not as simple as "anonymous people could mess with your data at any random time". There are a set of explicit rules for them to follow, and if they "mess with the data" in ways that are against the rules or that make it inaccurate, it is likely that their work will be quickly changed.

[Jim Lane]

52. You could do so, with some effort

You ask, "does Wiki have IP# time stamped and compiled for any lawsuit i need to create?"

Yes, you can look at the history of an article and see each edit. If someone edited your bio to say you're a pedophile, you can determine the date and time of that edit, and either the IP address or, for a registered Wikipedia user, the user name. To get enough information to serve a summons and complaint, you might need to serve a subpoena on the Wikimedia Foundation.

Your biggest problem is that defamation law covers only a tiny fraction of the problems that arise in writing articles. If you edited a Wikipedia article to give data on Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and someone else edits the same passage by changing the data you provided, I don't think you'd have a cause of action against that subsequent editor. "Screwing with my online research" isn't (yet) recognized at law as a tort. Same deal if you go to the article about a Republican politician and it doesn't include the pending bribery case against him, because some zealot has edited Wikipedia to remove that information. It wouldn't help you to know the zealot's full legal name, home address, and Social Security number -- you still have no lawsuit.

[JVS]

89. What sources are those? Why would anyone not put up a disclaimer that they're not responsible...

for any damages?

[Jazzgirl]

24. Universities will tell you

Don't quote Wikipedia as a reference. It is not always a credible source of information. If you want some quick info personally, it might be okay but you still might want to double check it.

[Time for change]

28. If a Wikipedia article quotes from a book or some other source that is not on-line

I will link to the Wikipedia article when writing a DU post rather than quote the book directly (If I haven't read the book) because by doing so I will be giving the reader more context, since the reader isn't likely to go out and get the book.

If I was doing an assignment for a university I would quote directly from the book, since it was the original source.

[Sgent]

38. Universities say the same thing about an Encyclopedia

University level research should only refer to original sources -- neither wiki nor Britannica are original sources.

[anigbrowl]

65. Yes. And Wikipedia tells its people...

don't just write what you think, back it up with sources people can use - a policy which is pretty strictly enforced. The citations are there for a reason. Wikipedia describes and organizes existing knowledge. It's a gateway to knowledge, not the knowledge itself. You don't quote Wikipedia as a reference, you use Wikipedia to find quotable references.

Anyone who thinks an encyclopaedia of any kind is an academic destination in itself isn't doing it right.

[MadBadger]

70. True, but what they dont tell you is that Wikipedia is great for Terms Tests

Its fantastic when you have a bunch of terms you need to study.

[Towlie]

31. Still, Funk & Wagnells won't tell you what "pwn" means, or give you a list of South Park characters.

[anigbrowl]

64. Nonsense. You have (or should have) your own bullshit detectors.

If you are reading an article and find the propositions within it incredible in some way, you can check the quality of the sources and/or the quality of the editing and the history page. Read actively rather than passively and you'll be just fine. What you want is an unimpeachable authority on any topic which you can rely on without any thought on your own part. Well, that's not a good way to learn, nor are you likely to be well served by a privately operated Encyclopaedia.

And yes, people do pay for Wikipedia, voluntarily.

[Chulanowa]

12. The same could be said of most sources provided on the internet, or even in print

"Proof" and what counts as proof varies greatly, depending on who's engaged in the argument. Wikipedia should not be used as the sole basis of an argument, any more than any other encyclopedia, but it can give you a lot of leads and details to look up in other sources.

THis is why it's called "reference material" of course.

Problem is, online, it's hard to find much that's reputable. Want to have some fun? Try to argue either side over in the I/P forum. It's an argument that's hard enough to engage even with full access to research, books, documentaries, and all the otehr shit that you can research for a real debate. Limit it to what you can find online and you'll have more of a problem

[Hatalles]

77. You are right. Majority rules on Wikipedia and majority is not always right!

Majority rules on Wikipedia and majority is not always right!!

I've seen controversial articles skewed a particular way because of the majority's view on the particular hot topic. The same is the case with articles on controversial figures with minimal or tidied up "criticism of" sections.

On Wikipedia, the most vocal people (with the most allies) always get their way. It's Edward Said's "construction of knowledge" on full display. See Stephen Colbert's "Wikiality" vs Reality.

IMHO, Wikipedia becoming such a crutch for people is a very bad, bad thing.

[inna]

6. enthusiastic rec # 9 here! nt :)

[JDPriestly]

7. I also love Wikipedia. If you are certain that something

I quote from Wikipedia is not true, let me know. Correct me -- and Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a quick reference.

[Control-Z]

10. The discussion and history tabs

provide a bit of insight into the subjects - How they were researched. Why some information may not be included. The amount of time given to writing the article. The number of people contributing... I find the information useful if I have questions about accuracy and thoroughness of a subject.

[Prophet 451]

11. Enthuasiastic rec

I use Wiki constantly. It's not perfect and often lacks depth (which is understandable since they're trying to be an encyclopaedia, not a fount of all knowledge) but the data is useful, almost always accurate, free and readily accessable. As long as you remember it's limitations, you can't go wrong.

[nichomachus]

13. Wikipedia is good

for things that aren't even arguably controversial -- like the date of the Franco-Prussian War. However, there are enough disinformation artists and moles on Wikipedia -- just like there are here on DU -- that I wouldn't use it for anything that's even possibly open to question.

[Time for change]

19. What would you consider a good source of information for controversial sources?

I noted its limitations with regard to controversial subjects, as in my brief discussion of its handling of the 9/11 issue in the OP. But what would you consider a good source of information with regard to controversial issues, and why would you consider them an inherantly better source than what you find in Wikipedia?

[nichomachus]

26. I look at all sources with skepticism

Some are better than others -- and you have to do your own work to find those you trust.

The trouble with Wikipedia is that it can change between the time I start typing this and the time I finish. There have been enough cases of people with an interest going in an changing stuff. Some have been caught -- with great notoriety. However, you then have to assume that a lot more of that goes on and isn't detected.

[Time for change]

27. Yes, we should look at all sources with skepticism

That's what I mean when I say that each case should be considered individually and judged on the intrinsic merits of the article, not just on whether it was found in Wikipedia vs. the Wall Street Journal.

But newspapers can misquote sources just as well as Wikipedia can. One big difference, it seems to me, is that because of the large number of editors with Wikipedia, mistakes are more likely to be caught, and caught sooner. So the information changes. Isn't it better that inaccurate information be changed for the better than simply be allowed to stand? And keep in mind also that newspapers often refuse to make corrections even when they're called on their mistakes. Or sometimes they acknowledge mistakes on page 20 when the original article appeared on the front page.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. the comparison is silly

Wiki does not have sources to misquote. While a newspaper is often the actual source and genesis of a story, Wiki never is. The two things are not at all the same things. People read things from sources, such as newspapers, and make articles for Wiki out of them.
The facts don't change, but what is written down as if it were fact sure does. Use at your own risk, but enjoy. It is useful for quick surface reading or for getting a start on some area of interest, but anyone trying to tell me that Wiki is the 'source' of a story, or of some research is as crazy as a person telling me their TV wrote Hamlet because they watched Hamlet on TV.

[Time for change]

76. I didn't say that Wikipedia is the original source for stories

I said that they quote from sources. So do newspapers. In that respect they are similar.

[Mist]

14. Good article, Time for change. I use Wikipedia because it's fast, and has links to

more fleshed-out articles. Thanks for sticking up for Wiki! I'm tired of reading "Anybody can edit it." Yes, anybody willing to abide by the verifiability and reliable sources guidelines. I think that people being able to contribute is a positive point of Wikipedia.

[djp2]

15. as a Wikipedia contributor...

I wholeheartedly agree with you..

One failing that I believe that Wikipedia has is sometimes a LACK of Eyewitnesses and Point of View. I have even made a Userbox that advocates this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidPickett/Userboxes/eye

A comment on my userpage:
"I find one glaring absence in Wikipedia, which is the LACK of Point of View and eyewitness accounts, which could greatly ADD to WIKIPEDIA if openly labeled as such in an article. How many people have BEEN THERE, and saw events occur, but don't have references or citations to back up their observations??"

[djp2]

16. As a Wikipedia contributor....

Subject: as a Wikipedia contributor...
Message:
I wholeheartedly agree with you..

One failing that I believe that Wikipedia has is sometimes a LACK of Eyewitnesses and Point of View. I have even made a Userbox that advocates this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidPickett/Userboxes/eye

A comment on my userpage:
"I find one glaring absence in Wikipedia, which is the LACK of Point of View and eyewitness accounts, which could greatly ADD to WIKIPEDIA if openly labeled as such in an article. How many people have BEEN THERE, and saw events occur, but don't have references or citations to back up their observations??"

[Time for change]

20. Your link apparently doesn't work -- I get "Bad Title -- The requested page is invalid"

I think I see your point about the lack of eyewitness accounts. Of course, they can reference articles that note eyewitness accounts, but not use them directly.

Could the reason be that they haven't figured out a way to exert enough control over the process? In other words, if a journalist interviews an eyewitness, s/he can use his/her judgment in determining whether or not the witness is reliable enough to quote. But if anyone is allowed to enter eyewitness accounts, perhaps the process could be too easily abused.

But as you say, as long as the process could be sufficiently and clearly labelled as such, then maybe the lack of control wouldn't matter that much.

[djp2]

37. I've tried twice to fix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidPickett is my user page

I've even thought of starting my own "I was there and I saw this" type of wiki blog.

[Jim Lane]

49. A weird way to fix your link

I wrote a reply in which I tried to include a link to your user page. In preview, my link didn't work, but the link in your post (as it showed up under "Original Message" in my preview window) worked, even though it hadn't before.

On that theory, maybe someone who wants to see your user page can do so by hitting "Reply" to my message, then "Preview" without even writing a reply, then see if to your user page has become valid.

The moral is: If you decide to (it's free!), don't pick a user name that begins with a capital D. The DU software sees colon-D and thinks you want to smile. :D Same deal with a capital P. :P

[djp2]

58. I would never have known!

Thanks

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. Traditional encyclopaedias, imo, it seems to me, are markedly right-wing in their orientation.

But, then, the powerful have always loved knowledge for the power it can provide them with, and when it fails to serve their purpose, it's the most natural thing in the world for them to subvert it. Their interpetation of Adam Smith's precepts are a particularly grotesque example of their bad faith.

Little wonder, therefore, that they loathe and deprecate Wikipedia, and seek every opportunity to either redact articles by others or use it for their own misrepresentations, as they deem appropriate for their purposes.

[imdjh]

22. I grew up using World Book as both reference and reading material

I'm something of an outcast in my family because I don't like to read entire books, especially fiction or historical fiction. I've read reference materials for pleasure most of my life, and before the internet was even known to keep a volume or two in the bathroom. One friend described me as "an endless source of useless information".

I can't say that I think back on World Book as being particularly right wing. If anything, I'd say it was gutless; reducing complicated events to all the W's except "Why" and often failing to connect connected events and issues.

[Joe Chi Minh]

48. The "gutlessness" may well have been the truthful content inimical to

right-wing propaganda. However, I am speaking about my own experience, so can't formally deny the possibility of "black swans".

[PufPuf23]

21. Wikipedia is a good Cliff Notes version of many subjects

Wiki is an overview and has references to other sources.

There is a feedback mechanism.

Some obscure subjects are scrubbed, inaccurate, or not much information is collected.

An obscure example is General Rios Mott of Guatemala and his relationship with a pentecostal ministry founded in Humboldt county,CA by the name of Gospel Outreach. The Rios Mott entry has his connection with Gospel Outreach but the link goes to a page scrubbed to nothing because of controversy. General Mott became a Gospel Outreach minister as 10,000 or so indigenous peoples were slaughtered as demons 30 years or so ago.

I have no qualms about linking to wiki.

As usual right minded and clear in your analysis. Thank you.

[Odin2005]

23. IMO there is no such thing as a "Neutral Point of View"

Everyone is biased to some degree, even if it is unconscious. What is called a "neutral point of view" is merely a "tyranny of the majority" of biases. As someone with Asperger's Syndrome this is a phenomenon that I find glaringly obvious in what I consider a Neurotypicalist bias (treating autistic traits as part of a "disorder" that needs to be "fixed" instead of part of who the person is as an individual) in the articles on Autistic Spectrum Disorders.

[bleever]

25. This reminds of a time my brother got a recipe off the internet

(this was probably about ten years or so ago) and our stepfather said, "Well, how can you trust that? It might be a joke!"

My brother and I had to laugh, because his bias against the internet led him to overlook that we were fully capable of looking at a recipe for pad thai and knowing, based on our experience of cooking, and having had pad thai, whether or not the recipe was a real one or not.

I think Wikipedia is tremendously valuable, as long as your bring your normal faculties to bear in the usual way.

[Usrename]

40. Well said.

An amusing bit of insight.

In my own experience, even Snopes is wrong about some stuff.

[Time for change]

62. That's a very good point

Judging the source of the information is just one of many factors that goes into evaluating the validity of information.

[underpants]

29. It is a good starting point. Usually mostly accurate.

[20score]

32. K&R. Best defense of Wikipedia I've read. I'm bookmarking this post.

[Jim Lane]

33. The key fact is that many people DO rely on Wikipedia, so we should be trying to improve it

Wikipedia is one of the ten most-visited sites on the Web. For most search terms that you run through Google, the Wikipedia entry will be the top-ranked hit or will at least be high on the list.

I realize that your post is directed to how and why you yourself use it. The point I'm adding is that even people who disagree with you and disparage Wikipedia should recognize that millions of people do use it. As a result, Wikipedia is a great opportunity for disseminating information that's downplayed by the corporate media. Unfortunately, the right wing has discovered that manipulating Wikipedia can serve their ends.

You're right about the problem concerning sources. Wikipedia needs more editors who aren't tied to the view that only the corporate media are reliable sources. As it stands now, anyone can add an assertion to a Wikipedia article and back it up with a citation to the Wall Street Journal, but I encounter all kinds of flak when I try to cite Media Matters for America. If more progressives were involved in editing, the situation could be greatly improved.

If any DUer wants help with the software or some other aspect of the Wikipedia editing process, feel free to PM me. I'll be glad to do what I can.

[Time for change]

34. That's an excellent point

On what basis do you get flak when you try to cite Media Matters or other progressive sources? And are you able to cite them despite the flak?

[Jim Lane]

35. Citing Media Matters, etc.

The usual argument is that Media Matters is biased. Of course, biases in the corporate media, like Fox News, are given much less consideration.

Here's an example. There was a major battle at Wikipedia's concerning Wallace's contentious interview with Bill Clinton. The dispute takes up quite a bit of . The background is that, after the interview, Media Matters issue a report examining numerous prior Fox News Sunday shows to see how Wallace and his colleagues had treated Bush administration officials. Notably, this wasn't a Media Matters report that said something like "Fox News is a pack of conservative shills." Instead, it was a simple search of publicly available transcripts to get the answer to Clinton's question -- whether the Fox people had asked any of the Bushies a single question about the firing of Richard Clarke or about the response to the attack on the Cole. (Not surprisingly, Clinton's insinuation was correct -- they hadn't asked.) On that talk page you'll see constant attacks on Media Matters but, of course, no one refuting anything in the Media Matters report.

Nevertheless, it took a huge amount of effort by more than one of us over a prolonged period to keep that information in the Chris Wallace bio. Even then, it could stay in only if Media Matters were described in a way to indicate its progressive orientation.

[Time for change]

36. Interesting -- So who are the ones who give you the trouble?

Are they just RW editors? Or does the Wikipedia management take their side on these arguments, considering Fox News to be more of a "reliable source" (because it is a national and well known news source) than Media Matters.

And, since they required you to note that Midia Matters has a progressive orientation, were you able to note that FOX News has a conservative orientation, or was that not allowed because, after all, FOX News is a national TV news source, and therefore automatically "reliable"?

[Jim Lane]

56. Coping with bias on Wikipedia

There are certainly some avid RW editors. They've been especially visible lately on the Sarah Palin bio, where anything that might reflect badly on their heroine is downplayed or removed altogether.

In addition, however, there are some editors who simply have an excessively narrow view of "reliable sources". To them, it means the MSM and little else. A source is deemed reliable if it's published by a large for-profit corporation, which makes most of its revenue through advertising that tries to sell people crap they don't need. Obviously, this approach introduces a de facto RW bias.

As for Fox, the includes the criticism, but in the common he-said-she-said style:

Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel publicly denies any bias in the channel's reporting.

That summary is from the lead section. There's more detail about both sides later in the article.

When Fox is being cited as a source, I don't usually try to say "Fox is conservative." It's usually more important to add a citation to provide the facts that Fox deliberately omitted, or to report a contrary opinion. Going after every instance of reliance on Fox is lower priority (for me, anyway) than dealing with other problems. Wikipedia has many, many articles that need some sort of attention from an editor who's familiar with the progressive viewpoint.

[Hannah Bell]

43. I find it useful. That said, it's not only the right wing who manipulates it for their own ends.

[Norrin Radd]

41. Has anyone looked at Britannica lately?

Traditional encyclopedias are sadly lacking in the breadth of information that they deem to cover. I believe that even the most obscure or superficial or inconsequential bits of information (such as pop culture trivia) are important to catalog.

Amusingly, the online Encarta links to online wikis to make up for its shortcomings.

[JonLP24]

45. I think Wikipedia is great. If you want to find out what's wrong with Wikipedia... go to Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

[onehandle]

51. Many DUers only trust that comes out of their fingers and through the keyboard.

I would trust Wikipedia... or my cat over the offhand comments posted here.

I find the entries at Wikipedia to be well sourced.

[krispos42]

54. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that they track all changes

When something politically big erupts, and some obscure person or event is all of a sudden in the political spotlight, the article can be in flux as new information is updated and/or political activists disrupt the articles with spam, vandalism, and bad information.

But using the "History" tab, you can read the article as it was written a week, a month, a year before the upheaval.

[djp2]

59. Exactly right..

Just too many people don't know about "History" in Wikipedia...for those of you who don't know its on the top tab bar

[Leigh Oats]

78. Wikipedia admin's own essay on vandalism

Says Krispos42 in message 54 ("Sun May-10-09 02:42 PM"):

++++++++++++++++++++++++

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that they track all changes

When something politically big erupts, and some obscure person or event is all of a sudden in the political spotlight, the article can be in flux as new information is updated and/or political activists disrupt the articles with spam, vandalism, and bad information.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Krispos42: Your mention of vandalism committed against Wikipedia articles reminds me that in January 2008 I valiantly tried, as a defender of Wikipedia's charter, to delete an unproductive and distracting pleonasm (or tautology, or redundancy) from the admin's main article on such vandalism.

That pleonasm, "deliberate attempt", is still in the first sentence at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism :

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

The world recognises the noun "attempt" as referring to a deliberate act rather than to an accidental or otherwise involuntary act, so the adjective "deliberate" is redundant when it's employed to somehow qualify the noun "attempt". In the same way, the adjective "unfortunate" in the phrase "unfortunate catastrophe" (yes, it crops up in the search engines) is redundant.

My attempt to zap the "deliberate" in "deliberate attempt" is mentioned in my list of contributions at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leigh_Oats

A gauleiter who was swimming beyond his or her depth in the English language blindly reinstated the "deliberate" and made a halfbaked attempt to tell the world why he had done so.

I quietly chuckled at the vandalism article's mention of "the insertion of nonsense into articles".

Anyway, that experience taught me to resist any further temptation to improve a Wikipedia article by direct means. Wikipedia isn't so much semiliterate as it is antiliterate.

[Jim Lane]

79. I'd say you're overreacting to one incident.

The editor who reverted your change wrote an edit summary: "ah, that's not there idly -- please discuss on talk". (See the reversion with the edit summary .)

The point is that, especially with a major Wikipedia policy that's been adopted by consensus, changes should be discussed first. That's how collaborative editing works. At times it can be tedious (OK, even maddening).

In this instance, I can see your point about the meaning of "attempt". On the other hand, I can also see the point of inserting the superfluous "deliberate". Not everyone reading the policy will be in the top one percent of those knowledgeable about English. (The English-language Wikipedia has a fair number of editors who don't even have English as a first language.) Instead of relying on people to glean such fine shades of meaning, it's sometimes advisable to follow a belt-and-suspenders approach, to make an important point absolutely clear. These are questions that could be addressed on the talk page.

This one incident doesn't mean that improving Wikipedia's English is a hopeless task. One of my personal bugaboos is the garbling of the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. Some of my Wikipedia edits add important political information that I've learned on DU, but some of them simply change "which" to "that". You'll find it easier to make improvements to articles as opposed to policies. I hope you'll give it another try.

[Leigh Oats]

83. I certainly wouldn't want to overreact

Says Jim Lane ("Mon May-11-09 06:55 AM"):

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hope you'll give it another try.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

And start an edit war and so give myself a bad name in the eyes of at least one floundering gauleiter and probably many of the punters? We're continually warned against edit-warring.

I have things to do that are much more enjoyable and productive than that occupation. :-)

[Overseas]

57. Corporate PR professionals may not like Wikipedia.

Too much information available that they can't control.

So if they can stimulate distrust of the whole site, that works far better for them than having to explain away each pesky fact or allegation that appears there. So some of them may be planting seeds of distrust they hope will spread.

We also have a large fleet of Strawman Bashers. They would pretend that others take every word of Wikipedia as gospel. Those self-appointed heroes want to suppose they are the true thinkers who question everything while the rest of us just drink it all in. It is far easier to smear the use of a particular resource than to discuss the historical events you may be citing. Just like during the H1N1 outbreak, there were many threads bashing hysteria about it, even though most of us here were just following the news from various sources, learning to wash our hands more and touch our faces less.

Thank you for your thoughtful review of Wikipedia. I find their consensus style really fascinating and refreshing. And like most of us here, I check sources and read further if I want more.

[mr1956]

61. It's a great starting point

I've used Wikipedia in my school papers not as a primary source but as a place that links to more accepted sources of information. For my own casual knowledge I do the same. It works for me as long as I don't stop there.

[Time for change]

66. It hadn't occurred to me until I started reading some of the responses on this thread

that some or much of the Wikipedia bashing could have originated from RW corporate types who feared it. As you say, "too much information available that they can't control". Even though some of it has a RW slant, it is nevertheless dangerous to them. I should have thought of that.

[Raster]

60. Thank you Time for Change! I like Wikipedia!

I also find that those that deride Wikipedia usually disagree with the information presented. And usually, instead of providing good, factual reference as to why they have an issue with Wikipedia, they usually resort to unsubstantiated accusations and name calling.

[Time for change]

72. Yes

It really bothers me when people dismiss a reference simply because of the source that published it, with no attempt to go beyond that in their evaluation of its contents.

[gorfle]

63. Cliff's Notes

Wikipedia is the "Cliff's notes" of research.

Also, it is great for non-controversial things. Say, for example, you wish to know about the circumference of a circle, or the atomic structure of water. Not much controversy, so Wikipedia entries there are pretty reliable. Anything controversial, however, will be highly volatile and subject to change based on people's opinions. Also anything related to businesses or business practices is susceptible to astro-turfing.

[Time for change]

68. Not just non-controversial topics

Consider the dead Iraqi civilians in the Iraq War, for example. The Wikipedia article contains several widely varying estimates of the numbers, along with references to each and a brief description of how the estimates were arrived at. Of course, it doesn't provide all the information you need to know in order to independently evaluate the estimates yourself. But it is quite a valuable resource for exploring the matter in further detail.

Even something as controversial as the 9/11 attacks, it provides some useful information. As I said in the OP, I feel that the gave alternative explanations (to the official one) short shrift (You'd have to read some books to have a reasonable grasp of the subject). But it does indicate that there are alternative theories of what happened. It also says that NIS supported the 9/11 Commission's position. All the information is true -- It is just incomplete. If you want to accept that the support of NIS, a government agency in a notoriously corrupt presidential administration, must be correct in their conclusions, then you aren't thinking very hard or clearly. But if you want to know more about it, you need to dig a lot further.

[gorfle]

80. I would say...

I would say that both of the examples you provided are highly controversial topics.

[BAPhill]

69. The problem with Wiki..

is that anybody can write it...and some have agendas to meet.

[The Doctor.]

71. See here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#Trust_and_security

You see, with the open editing function, anyone attempting to further an agenda with opinion, bias, or disinformation will have their efforts stymied relatively quickly. Given that Wikipedia has a very clear policy of objectivity, any agendas will stand out like poop in a punchbowl.

[Cetacea]

82. Yup. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

73. Wiki is known to be about as good as Enc. Brit.. Anyone bitching about its use for non-volatile...

topics is a fool.

[Uncle Joe]

75. I believe Wikipedia to be an excellent concept and source of information making full

use of natural synergy.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

[Cetacea]

81. "...concluded that gold fish were smarter than dolphins..." 'nuff said

But in fairness to WIKI, it is always a work in progress. The page on dolphin intelligence is dated and leaves one with the impression that dolphins are intelligence-wise in between dogs and chimps while failing to include research that refutes that.
Like another poster said, I wouldn't use them as a quotable source.

[Raster]

85. Cetecea, why don't you update that particular area?

[Piewhacket]

84. Wikipedia is a mixed bag o' stuff. You have to carefuly pick out the good stuff.

The problem is, to do that you already have to know
the subject.

(I'm too late to rec. Nice article, Time for change.)

(Neutrality is not that hard: If someone writes "Hitler
was a compassionate man, just misunderstood." That would probably
violate neutrality because it is (a) opinion and (b) not supported
by any mainstream authority, not to mention (c) inflammatory. Yet
such can persist for extended periods on Wikipedia, due to dysfunctional
editing of various kinds, so a fact on wikipedia is no better than
the reference given supporting it, and because Wiki authors are anon
it could be reckless disregard of the truth to rely on such for anything
important/controversial without personally checking the original citation.)

[thekohser]

86. Let's talk FACTS about Wikipedia's error rate

From moment to moment, you cannot be certain of Wikipedia's reliability. In fact, it is far less reliable than other printed sources you could (and should) be using.

An expansive and systematic study of all of the edits made for one calendar quarter (late 2007) on Wikipedia's 100 articles about the hundred U.S. senators showed that the content in those articles was deliberately misleading, misinformed, or defamatory about 6.8% of the time. Some would say that's "not bad", others would say it's "not good".

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study

I don't believe any encyclopedia would ever be 100% perfect, and surely no encyclopedia matches Wikipedia's breadth of coverage. However, a 6.8% inaccuracy rate is nothing for the Wikipedia project to be proud of.

Another incident is instructive. The Wikipedia article about Jackson, Michigan stated that Abraham Lincoln was in attendance at the first Republican Party nominating convention. This was false. The only city that Lincoln ever visited in Michigan was Kalamazoo, and it had nothing to do with the state nominating convention in Jackson. This error was present within Wikipedia for 601 days. What about this notion that on "non-controversial" articles, there are few mistakes, and any that do appear are fixed quickly? Is 601 days a "quick" correction?

http://akahele.org/2009/03/persistence_of_misinfo

An older university study of Wikipedia's "damaged views" rate suggested that Wikipedia is getting progressively more and more damaged over time.

http://chance.dartmouth.edu/chancewiki/index.php/Chance_News_31#The_Unbreakable_Wikipedia.3F

I think that people who will go to Wikipedia for information, and ONLY to Wikipedia for information are selling short their educational opportunity. Take advantage of the many, diverse resources that are available for research -- both online and off-line.

One of my favorites lately is Google Books. You can type in any search term, then get a truckload of books that discuss that topic -- with many of the books "readable", at least the few pages around your specific search term or phrase. Check it out:

http://books.google.com

P.S. Anyone who cites that bogus "Nature" study comparing Wikipedia to Britannica should wake up and read this:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php

The so-called "study" was rigged from the get-go to favor Wikipedia, and Wikipedia STILL came up 32% short.

[Leigh Oats]

90. Printed?

Says Thekohser ("Tue May-12-09 01:32 AM"):

+++++++++++++++++++++

From moment to moment, you cannot be certain of Wikipedia's reliability. In fact, it is far less reliable than other printed sources

+++++++++++++++++++++

Whatever you mean by "printed" . . . :-)

[Leigh Oats]

87. Growing-pains

Says Time for Change:

+++++++++++++++++++

I have noticed that there are many people, both in and outside of DU, who exhibit a sort of condescending attitude towards the use of Wikipedia as an information source.

+++++++++++++++++++

Certainly the world knows that it's a great---um---drivel source.

We should file the problem under "growing-pains".

[JVS]

88. Not suitable for academic use, but DU isn't academia, and unless someone can point out why the...

wikipedia article is fucked, I tend to accept it.

[conscious evolution]

91. Always check the EDIT HISTORY of wiki articles

Many people edit wiki pages to support their arguments.Including people on DU