Wikipedia != Authoritative?

Frozen North writes "Recently, this article in the Syracuse Post-Standard caused a stir by dismissing Wikipedia as an authoritative source, and even suggesting that it was a little deceptive by looking too much like a "real" encyclopedia. Techdirt suggested an experiment: insert bogus information into Wikipedia, and see how long it takes for the mistake to be removed. Well, I did that experiment, and the results weren't good: five errors inserted over five days, all of which lasted until I removed them myself at the end of the experiment."

Comments

Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be a disturbing trend. If you try to include information in Wiki entries about people or events that add perspective to them that are seemingly unpopular but still true, those additions will get deleted and you will get a message to the effect your account will be deleted if you do that again.

The fact that you can put in bogus information and no one cares does not suprise me.

Re:Please be kind - message from Jimbo

[Lord Omlette]

The entire Wikipedia model depends on trust and goodwill.

Doomed.