Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Founder Sees Serious Quality Problems

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the wiki-this dept.

Juha-Matti Laurio writes "The Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online project. From the article: 'Meanwhile, criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigor that's almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven't met a wiki-fiddler.'"

7 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. What's scary is... by mtec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm seeing more and more people use it as their de facto source for information.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  2. Yes, Wikipedia has accuracy issues, but..... by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What other encyclopedia chronicles the history of slashdot?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_history

    --
    No Sigs!
  3. Love it or leave it ... by ubrgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's still one of the best destinations and tools on the Net. Everytime I show it to someone who has never seen it, they're blown away.

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  4. What's in a name... by p2sam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikipedia is an excellent online source of information. But because of its name, critics hold Wikipedia to the same standard as an encyclopedia. I certainly don't think it's the same thing as an encyclopedia, a wiki's open and collaborative nature is fundamentally different from the construct of an encyclopedia. It's not better or worse, it's just a different thing.

  5. Re:Wikipedia generally works by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In my experience it's exactly the controversial issues that Wikipedia handles least best. Your example is one where it worked, but very often such disputes force the inclusion of some far-out whacko idea with no credibility that an encyclopedia with a more controlled editorial policy wouldn't even consider worthy of mention.

    The trouble is that the whacko editors have far more free time on their hands than the sensible ones, and can just keep hammering away at an article until their POV, silly as it may be, is presented on a level with a more reasoned viewpoint.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  6. There's bad information, but it still rules. by dslauson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By it's nature, Wikipedia is no good for academic research or as the final authority on anything. That said, if I want an overview of what something is all about, and the information doesn't have to be 100% accurate, then Wikipedia is the way to go.

    Think about the information you would get by just Googling something. You're just as likely, probably more likely, to come up with garbage information. The difference at Wikipedia is that it's been reviewed by many eyes, and it's not under the sole control of some random dude with who has a web page.

    Users should, of course, be aware of the potential for bad information. In fact, I'd recommend to any user who hasn't yet, you should read their What Wikipedia Is Not page.

  7. Re:Perhaps they need a team of paid editors by ComputerSherpa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikipedia works best for geeky subjects. Take a look at the articles (well, more like article hierarchies) for Star Trek and World of Warcraft - you won't find a more thorough or more carefully woven source of information anywhere else.

    Wikipedia will never replace Britannica or Encarta. That's not what it's good at. Its strength is in compiling information from hundreds of opinions to present a (mostly) cohesive article. If the type of information it presents is "trivia" to you, then use a different encyclopedia.

    --
    Information wants to be anthropomorphized!