It’s a huge problem. And it starts with the fact that intelligent people, people who know better, keep quiet when the distortions work for them and their narrow interests . ." (Laurence Haughton)
"Wikipedia now to be able to say it can NEVER be trusted for any kind of reference. I could care less who owns or runs it , all I care about is truth and accuracy.
By nature of the wikipedia non-structure, ocassionally someone will come in and spraypaint their intitals — or in your case, one will tangle with a co-author until one person gives way.
We all know how unreliable Wikipedia is, deleting the true information and keeping the false bits whenever the community is so compelled" (Jorge)
Profs warn students against Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone with a bit of expertise and an Internet connection can contribute to, is a popular resource for college students. But some professors are saying that its facts can be unreliable and shouldn't be cited when doing research, reports Technews World.
Why does mainstream media play such a significant role in the Wikipedia validation process? We know damn well that mainstream media is often wrong. . .
THE GREAT FAILURE OF WIKIPEDIA
Transcription of a presentation/speech given at Notacon 3, April 8, 2006. The original presentation's audio is available at: http://www.archive.org/details/20060408-jscott-wikipedia
"Hello everyone, my name is Jason Scott,
So, the name of this speech is called "The Great Failure Of Wikipedia". Part of that is branding, because that sounds really exciting, but part of it is also really true.
I first became aware of Wikipedia about a year and a half ago, maybe about a year and a half to two years now, where I'd heard what a lot of people hear when they hear about Wikipedia. They hear about the idea that it is this online encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and that there's this software that allows people to collaborate, provide information, truth that they find or history or facts that they find and together, working together, this large group of people are able to create a superior learning and reference tool.
So the first criticism is that if it's on Wikipedia, you shouldn't believe in it. Now this is what I call the illegitimate child theory. People say "Well, you know, you shouldn't have unprotected sex. You should not have sex in a way that you do not regret the outcome." That's fantastic. That would explain all the illegitimate children that occur every year. You know, you can say how people should be, and then you can see how people are.
In Wikipedia, there's basically a form of information vandal (they're called "vandals"), who come in and undo something . . ."
School sues over Wikipedia posts
26th July 2006
A high school in Nebraska, USA is suing over entries posted on Wikipedia - the website that "anyone can edit" that's popular with teenagers and the unemployed. Wikipedia itself isn't the target of the lawsuit from Skutt High School, nor are many of the sites that legally or illegally scrape Wikipedia's content.
The school has filed a John and Joe Doe lawsuit to identify the perps behind edits which, AP reports, "... include sharp criticism of Skutt principal Patrick Slattery, obscene language and a note about drug use by students."
"These particular edits were really harmful and mean-spirited," said Patrick Flood, a lawyer for Skutt told AP.
The offending entry for Skutt High School was replaced by a clean stub.
The edits were made between February and June this year, but the offending page was deleted and replaced with a "clean" stub, which was accorded "protected" status on July 22. Protected status means the entry can't be edited by anonymous users, or recently-registered users, leaving it in the hands of Wikipedia's elite whoever they maybe.
Censorship at Wikipedia
As is by now well-known, Wikipedia presents itself as an online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, and whose entries anyone can edit. The idea is that people who are experts in their field will contribute articles, suitably augmented by others who are equally knowledgeable. While this idea is fine, in practice Wikipedia is unreliable, because anyone can edit articles, and in many cases the main aim of those editing articles is not to present the truth but rather a biassed interpretation.(like in the "Genocide" related topics, some Armenian vandal Pundit comes in as an Elite, and writes some distorted facts and deletes anything not backing up his/her views) Wikipedia has no effective defense against this, and is thus unreliable.
This flaw in Wikipedia manifests itself most often in articles dealing with history or contemporary events, in particular those relating to World War II and its aftermath, and to the events of September 11, 2001, and their consequences. There are people who are determined that certain facts should not receive publicity, and whenever an "unapproved" fact appears on Wikipedia some editor will come along and remove it. In fact there seem to be teams of such trolls, perhaps paid to do their work of censorship and their presentation of particular interpretations of history which their masters want to be the public "truth". Although this falsification occurs mainly in connection with historical articles, there is no guarantee that it does not occur in non-historical articles also. Because of this lack of defense against censorship and misrepresentation by determined bands of trolls, Wikipedia is not to be trusted.
Reuters: Wikipedia information unreliable shock horror!
When Kenneth Lay, the disgraced Enron chief, died suddenly this month, Reuters carefully monitored the way the death was described on Wikipedia. "In the space of a few minutes, Wikipedia had produced four different causes of death: suicide, heart failure, nervous strain and the retribution of a just God."
There is also a danger of what some critics call “online collectivism”, or “digital Maoism”. Just because a majority of people happen to believe something does not authenticate it. History is littered with unpleasant examples of moments when the collective voice, ignorant or misled, has drowned out dissent. Wikipedia gropes towards a consensus, but that is very different from truth.
Is wikipedia crap
"Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales created a stir when he admitted online that the entries for Bill Gates and Jane Fonda were “a horrific embarrassment” and “nearly unreadable crap”.
Jimmy made the comments in response to criticisms that wikipedia " is useful to consult to get a quick gloss on a subject but at a factual level it's unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper."
This highlights a critical point about collaboration, which often is lost in all the hype about its importance: collaboration can just as easily produce weak products as strong ones.
Wikipedia is unreliable and it gives false information" (Ken Thompson in News & Media) full Stop
"The conclusion is that if a group uses any and every opportunity to hit at the opponent, they must be either very desperate and fearful or suffer from insecurity. In a normal confrontation, selective opportunism produces more efficient use of energy and resources and better focused results. So the Armenian Dashnaks are suffering from over expansion of their resources (ie ability to convince the world) and Turks are suffering from under utilisation of their strength (doing not much against the opponent).
Guess which is going to fall due to fatigue? (good example is that Turks have not yet concentrated on the Armenian pages of Wikipedia whereas Armenian Dashnaks are watching over it second-by-second)
Advise is to prod on the Wikipedia Armenian pages and insert "dispute' flags ... try it and see how fast the Dashnaks are responding, but play it by the rules, do not shoot from the hip !!" (British European Turk NGOs)
So when some smart-ass know-it-all Turk Bashing Armenian racist becomes an elite Editor in Wikipedia, there is no structure being built in Wikipedia to differiantiate the reality from its fiction form, or is there?
. . . . . . . . . TO BE CONTINUED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Stuff I am working on" by someone nicknamed Fadix (an Anti-Turk in Wikipedia):
I am the one that created Ottoman Armenian Population and will be working more on it in future.
I will be soon contributing in many other entries, like the Armenian concentration camps, the Special organization, the Military Court etc. I will give a part of my knowledge regarding the Ottoman Armenians to Wikipedia, and I invite anyone to participate in the neutralization of my articles.
When all this project is over, maybe it could be an idea to have a Wikibook, in the wikibook project regarding the Armenian genocide which will cover all the entries regarding the genocide. But enough with that, first thing first, after contributing in the Armenian Genocide entry and the Ottoman Armenians population, I have to work in the Adana holocaust, and the Hamidian Massacres, and getting them neutralized. Everyone is open to contribute.
Just a warning for those that might have bad intention introducing crap and junk in those entries. I know a lot regarding the revisionist materials more than the very large majority of people, including revisionists, I may sound arrogant here, but even those that hate me will admit. Think twice before doing copypasting jobs... post and discuss on the talk page. And I require discussion in the talk page for adding informations or deleting of informations. I believe that edits without talk page justifications should be for minor changes such as "neutralizing" tones and stuff like that only.
Currently working on this article. User:Fadix/Ottoman_Armenian_Casualties
Wikipedia citation is toilet paper
PTO on Wikipedia: Patently Unreliable
Examiners at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office have used Wikipedia to help determine a patent application’s validity on everything from from car parts to chip designs. But on Aug. 15, reports Business Week’s Lorraine Woellert, the PTO told its examiners that they could no longer use the controversial online encyclopedia as an accepted source of information.
Said Patents Commisioner John Doll: “The problem with Wikipedia is that it’s constantly changing.” Doll says the agency used Wikipedia entries as background and not as the basis for deciding on an application. A PTO spokesperson attributed inquiries from Business Week for the shift in policy.
“I’ve been complaining about this for years,” says Greg Aharonian, a longtime agency muckraker who writes a patent newsletter. “From a legal point of view, a Wiki citation is toilet paper.”
Related Post: Wikipedia or WikiCrap?