Wikipedia

[anastrophe]

I'm not entirely sure whether this is the correct forum for these comments, but is seems roughly appropriate.



on a number of occasions, I have reference wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org ) as source of information regarding a variety of topics. Others have as well, some quite frequently.



I have direct control only over my own behavior; the most i can do with others is recommend that they adopt the same behavior.



I have decided that I am no longer going to reference wikipedia for *any* purpose. why? wikipedia is quite rapidly being poisoned, both from without and from within. the ad-hoc nature of it encourages mischief, vandalism, and bias. fundamentally, it boils down to this: wikipedia is not just a poor choice for reference material, and no substitute for a real encyclopedia, it is in fact a completely and totally unreliable source of information.



Sadly, because of the ease with which one can quickly drop into wikipedia, search for info, and find what *appears* to be authoritative facts, the use of wikipedia is spreading dramatically. i believe it really won't take terribly long - in internet years - before it collapses into itself and people stop visiting it. but until then, i think people would do well to look into some of the criticisms of wikipedia that are out there, and consider the ramifications.



a recent 9th circuit court opinion actually cited a wikipedia entry. that alone should send chills down one's spine.



following are a couple of links to articles discussing the shortcomings of the wiki.



http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1835857,00.asp

http://slate.msn.com/id/2117942/

[lady cop]

I've never used it, but thankyou for the heads up! i totally respect your opinion.

[turbonium]

I've noticed it too - it's odd to see a "reference" site go off on tangents like this.

[CVX]

anastrophe wrote: I'm not entirely sure whether this is the correct forum for these comments, but is seems roughly appropriate.



on a number of occasions, I have reference wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org ) as source of information regarding a variety of topics. Others have as well, some quite frequently.



I have direct control only over my own behavior; the most i can do with others is recommend that they adopt the same behavior.



I have decided that I am no longer going to reference wikipedia for *any* purpose. why? wikipedia is quite rapidly being poisoned, both from without and from within. the ad-hoc nature of it encourages mischief, vandalism, and bias. fundamentally, it boils down to this: wikipedia is not just a poor choice for reference material, and no substitute for a real encyclopedia, it is in fact a completely and totally unreliable source of information.



Sadly, because of the ease with which one can quickly drop into wikipedia, search for info, and find what *appears* to be authoritative facts, the use of wikipedia is spreading dramatically. i believe it really won't take terribly long - in internet years - before it collapses into itself and people stop visiting it. but until then, i think people would do well to look into some of the criticisms of wikipedia that are out there, and consider the ramifications.



a recent 9th circuit court opinion actually cited a wikipedia entry. that alone should send chills down one's spine.



following are a couple of links to articles discussing the shortcomings of the wiki.



http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1835857,00.asp

http://slate.msn.com/id/2117942/


Good post. Read an article about them in Wired. They were very defensive about how quickly their editors are able to get in there and "fix" malicious content. It sounded reasonable.

But your reference to the 9th Circuit Court? That seals it. Anything those fools do or reference is good enough for me to stay away from.

[Accountable]

I don't see how an encyclopedia one can edit can be a valid reference. I've read a few references from here and the information seemed valid, but I was reading them to get educated, not to assess.