Wikipedia Is Unreliable

  • Thread starter Thread starter discipleofJesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

discipleofJesus

Guest
Hi,

I noticed a few people on this forum quoting Wikipedia as if it’s a reliable source. I have seen many others outside this forum also quoting Wikipedia as if it is a reliable source. I think Wikipedia is clearly very unreliable. Why?

Because anyone can edit any article they want, removing, adding and changing the whole article. How do i know who edited which article, if they are truthful, liars, ignorant etc?

There is at least one edit button on each article, where all you have to do to edit the article is click on the edit button/s and and then edit what you want.

Check out ‘Why Wikipedia won’t work’ jihadwatch.org/archives/009534.php for more on why Wikipedia is not reliable.

Here’s a good question taken from this article ‘Why Wikipedia won’t work’

“How can anyone use this as a source? Don’t they see the edit button?”

Here’s a good quote taken from this article

"When visiting a Wikipedia site, the reader can look up previous versions if he likes. But the main article is just the product of the latest “editor.” Any Stalinist who wants to come along and airbrush out comments he doesn’t like can do so. Unlike a blog’s comments where the best cure for bad speech is more speech, Wikipedia editors can simply wipe away viewpoints with which they disagree. The most persistent wins.

Google is a far better way to get information, all though you do have to go to all that horrible trouble of thinking and evaluating sources for yourself when you use Google. On the plus side, because Google lists page according to how many people have found them to be possible answers to the questions they are asking, you will get exactly what Wikipedia claims to offer: an internet consensus. In addition, you will probably find some alternative points of view you can evaluate, if you feel up to the rigors of making decisions for yourself in a marketplace of ideas."
 
One time. I went to any random article of wikepidia and wrote “stupid” on it. 3 minutes late, it was gone. I believe they ask for sources before you post.
 
I havent noticed the Wikipedia to be to far off. I am a history major (of course I dont list wikipedia as a reference in my papers) but I will sometimes refer to it to remind me of some dates in history and generally it is correct. I wouldnt use it as a reference, there are far better and more reliable resources out there.
 
i would assume that some articles are much less reliable on wikipedia than other articles on wikipedia. for example, articles on Islam and other religions would be less reliable than an article on plants because a lot of people would want to edit articles on Islam to hide things they don’t want revealed or to paint a rosey picture of it (with false information) and others may want to edit articles on Christianity and make it look bad (with false information) when it isn’t etc. not that I am saying that this has happened on wikipedia, but I am just making a point about how it is likely that it has happened and continues to happen. this, in addition to what i said in my first post, clearly shows that wikipedia is unreliable.
 
I love Wikipedia. I think that it is a great idea. Just don’t use it as a primary source. It is the power of the whole world’s knowledge at your fingertips. If you want to know about Al Davis, which I did for a paper I had to write, there’s going to be some huge Al Davis fanatic out there who wrote all about him on Wikipedia.
If Wikipedia was as bad as the OP thinks, then we would see on it what you see in Yahoo! forums: vulgar, childish comments that make you re-think humans being the highest life-form on the planet.
That said, I think it should be used as a first source. That is, one you go to in order to spur further investigation from more serious sources.
Patrick
 
Wikipedia can also be great for pointing one in the direction of solid resources. It’s not good as primary resource, but as a “resource for resources” it’s pretty wonderful. Even when it doesn’t give you solid links, it can provide excellent leads in finding more information.

Peace and God bless!
 
40.png
discipleofJesus:
How do i know who edited which article, if they are truthful, liars, ignorant etc?
Click to expand...
How do you know that about the writers and editors of any other source?

Just because people have sufficients funds to publish, say, The New York Times, does not mean that they aren’t pushing an agenda and won’t twist facts for that agenda.

As an aside, there was a recent study comparing the frequency of errors in Wikipedia to those in the Encyclopedia Britanica, and it was close (so close that the numbers can be intrpreted differently to declare either one “better” than the other).
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Wikipedia can also be great for pointing one in the direction of solid resources. It’s not good as primary resource, but as a “resource for resources” it’s pretty wonderful. Even when it doesn’t give you solid links, it can provide excellent leads in finding more information.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Yes i think that is possible. I am not saying it is all bad and not useful at all. But just that it isn’t very reliable. I am emphasizing that it is unreliable because I often see people cite it as if it’s very reliable and as if it can be used as evidence or proof.
 
40.png
Timidity:
How do you know that about the writers and editors of any other source?
Click to expand...
Well books usually have a description of the author on the back of the book that will indicate whether this author is reliable or not. For example, books by Norman L. Geisler have the following or something like the following on the back of his books

“Norman L. Geisler is author or coauthor of some sixty books, including The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and his four-volume Systematic Theology. He has taught at the university and graduate level for nearly forty years and has spoken or debated in all fifty states and in twenty-five countries. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University and now serves as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary.”

So if I wanted to read a book on philosophy, apologetics or theology from an Evangelical perspective, I would know that he is one reliable source (or at least very likely to be reliable) on this topic.

If I wanted to learn about Catholicism, books by Catholic Bishops or books by Pope Benedict XVI would be reliable (or at least very likely to be reliable) on this topic.

But if there was a book about Catholicism by an anonymous author (especially one who doesn’t cite his sources) i would say it is unreliable. How do I know who wrote this? What are his qualifications? For all I know, it could be an ignorant anonymous person with no qualifications who doesn’t really know what he is talking about.

Articles in wikipedia are edited by (and pretty sure they are written by) anonymous people who often do not cite their sources. For all I know they could be written and/or edited by ignorant anonymous people with no qualifications who don’t really know what they are talking about…

However, if someone who wasn’t a specialist in a field but wrote a book in that field and claimed to do a lot of research for it and cited primary and authoritive sources etc, that could very well be reliable, so I could read that book and check out the sources along the way to verify if it is reliable or not.
 
"In mid-December, Wikipedia won an endorsement from a prominent source, however. An analysis conducted by the journal Nature showed that on scientific topics, an average Wikipedia article had about four “inaccuracies” (factual errors, critical omissions, or misleading statements), compared with about three inaccuracies per article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The similarity in quality seemed remarkable given that Wikipedia is thought to be written by thousands of “amateur” enthusiasts and Britannica by carefully chosen – and paid – experts. "
I quote Wikipedia, it is sometimes…a very good yet brief synopsis of very complicated topics.
 
more than likely discipleofjesus is ragging on wikipedia simply because it’s a lot less biased against islam than his favourite reference sites, such as answeringislam.org and other like orientalist-type, christian missionary sites which present a clearly biased and skewed representation of islam and its teachings.

timidity makes some good points here…
40.png
Timidity:
How do you know that about the writers and editors of any other source?

Just because people have sufficients funds to publish, say, The New York Times, does not mean that they aren’t pushing an agenda and won’t twist facts for that agenda.

As an aside, there was a recent study comparing the frequency of errors in Wikipedia to those in the Encyclopedia Britanica, and it was close (so close that the numbers can be intrpreted differently to declare either one “better” than the other).
Click to expand...
one thing i’ve noticed from wikipedia, even with the errors and inaccuracies its articles surely contain, more often than not, the authors of the articles give references to their sources, whereas the sources that discipleofjesus uses to attack islam and muslims will usually have mistranslated, misinterpretated and sometimes even delibrately clipped and altered quotes, citations, and references. also, as is the tendancy with many orientalist works regarding islam and its beliefs, the authors of these works are, more often than not, unable to distinguish the authentic sources of islamic doctrines from the inauthentic or even heretical sources, ignorant of many of the islamic technical terms used in islamic texts, and/or ignorant of the methogologies used by muslim scholars in writing or compiling their books (which is key to understanding why some scholars such as at-tabaree, for example, included many of the weak narrations and opinions in the works he authored such as his taareekh and his tafseer).

although wikipedia is not a site that whose information is to be accepted 100% without question, it is a good quick reference for general information, which from what i’ve seen thus far, is more reliable and unbiased than many of the sites i’ve seen used and referenced by some on this board.
 
40.png
discipleofJesus:
Hi,

I noticed a few people on this forum quoting Wikipedia as if it’s a reliable source. I have seen many others outside this forum also quoting Wikipedia as if it is a reliable source. I think Wikipedia is clearly very unreliable. Why?

Because anyone can edit any article they want, removing, adding and changing the whole article. How do i know who edited which article, if they are truthful, liars, ignorant etc?

There is at least one edit button on each article, where all you have to do to edit the article is click on the edit button/s and and then edit what you want.

Check out ‘Why Wikipedia won’t work’ jihadwatch.org/archives/009534.php for more on why Wikipedia is not reliable.

Here’s a good question taken from this article ‘Why Wikipedia won’t work’

“How can anyone use this as a source? Don’t they see the edit button?”

Here’s a good quote taken from this article

"When visiting a Wikipedia site, the reader can look up previous versions if he likes. But the main article is just the product of the latest “editor.” Any Stalinist who wants to come along and airbrush out comments he doesn’t like can do so. Unlike a blog’s comments where the best cure for bad speech is more speech, Wikipedia editors can simply wipe away viewpoints with which they disagree. The most persistent wins.

Google is a far better way to get information, all though you do have to go to all that horrible trouble of thinking and evaluating sources for yourself when you use Google. On the plus side, because Google lists page according to how many people have found them to be possible answers to the questions they are asking, you will get exactly what Wikipedia claims to offer: an internet consensus. In addition, you will probably find some alternative points of view you can evaluate, if you feel up to the rigors of making decisions for yourself in a marketplace of ideas."
Click to expand...
As a college teacher, I have had students in the past cite Wikipedia. This semester, I am placing a ban on Wikipedia in my syllabus because of the difficulties I’ve encountered in the past.

Blessings,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top