Wikipedia fraud
May 12, 2009
This is why I don't use Wikipedia as a source, although I will sometimes use it as background, although I don't trust it (or much of anything else I find on the 'net, for that matter).
And yes, I have had editors--wise ones, I think--specifically say, "Don't use Wikipedia as a source."
Best,
Mark
posted by Mark Terry at 12:28 PM
3 Comments:
In a related note, I did a research paper a couple of semesters ago on the accuracy of Wikipedia. I found that Wiki actually makes fewer factual errors than most Encyclopedias. This can be attributed to people who actually care about the subject matter doing it justice. However, my research concluded that not just Wikipedia, but all encyclopedias are prone to error. In one study I cited, several Wiki entries were found to have approximately 25% of their facts wrong. Published encyclopedias were were worse (29%, if I remember correctly).
Even so, I find both sources are great places to start. I just never end there.
That's pretty much my take on it, too. I have few problems starting with Wikipedia and in fact, for general info I like it a lot. But journalists should know better and double-check their sources anyway.
Yeah, wiki is a good place to start. But I always double check facts. I'd do that with any source.
Post a Comment
<< Home