The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English-language edition ), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, has been assessed in many ways, including statistically , through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Editing process unique to Wikipedia. [1] Recent incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for ‘revenge editing’ (inserting false, defamatory or biased statements into biographies) have attracted frequent publicity. [2] [3]

An early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia ‘s scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of “serious errors”. [4] The study by Nature Was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica , [5] and later Nature Replied to this with Both a formal response and a point by point rebuttal of Britannica ‘ s hand objections. [6] Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathology , [7] toxicology , [8] oncology , [9]pharmaceuticals , [10] and psychiatry [11] Were Compared To professional and peer reviewed sources and It was found Wikipedia That’s depth and coverage Were of a high standard. Concerns Regarding readability Were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology [12] and a study published in Psychological Medicine(2012), [11] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised Concerns about reliability. [13] [10] and psychiatry [11] were compared to professional and peer reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns Regarding readability Were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology [12] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012), [11] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised Concerns about reliability. [13] [10] and psychiatry [11] were compared to professional and peer reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns Regarding readability Were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology [12] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012), [11] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised Concerns about reliability. [13] Concerns Regarding readability Were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology [12] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012), [11] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised Concerns about reliability. [13] Concerns Regarding readability Were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology [12] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012), [11] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised Concerns about reliability. [13]

A South American coati . In July 2008, a 17-year-old student added an invented nickname to the Wikipedia article coati as a private joke, saying coatis were also known as “Brazilian aardvarks”. The false information Lasted for six years and in Wikipedia cam to be propagated by Hundreds of websites, Several newspapers ( one of qui Was later Cited as a source in Wikipedia ) and Even books published by university presses. [14] [15]

Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing , so reliability assessments of ict usually include examination of how Quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003-two years following Wikipedia’s establishment-found that “vandalism is usually repaired.” [16] and concluded that Wikipedia had “surprisingly effective self- Healing capabilities “. [17]

A number of incidents have also been publicized in which false information had lasted for a long time on Wikipedia. In May 2005, an anonymous editor started a controversywhen he wrote an article about John Seigenthaler containing several false and defamatory statements. [18] The inaccurate information remains uncorrected for four months. A biographical article on French Wikipedia portrayed a “Léon-Robert de L’Astran” as an 18th-century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal , a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigated later that the article was a hoax and of L’Astran had never existed. [19] Journalists from a wide spectrum of publications have similarly been embarrassed by repeating fake information from Wikipedia in current-affairs reports and obituaries. [20] [21]

dia editing model

Wikipedia allows anonymous editing; Contributors are not required to provide any identification, or even an email address. A 2007 study at Dartmouth College of the English Wikipedia reported that, contrary to usual social expectations, anonymous editors were some of Wikipedia’s most productive contributors of valid content. [22] However, the Dartmouth study was criticized by John Timmer of the Ars Technica website for its methodological shortcomings. [23]

Wikipedia trusts the Saami community to self-Regulate and Become more proficient at quality control . Wikipedia has more than one million articles written in more than 280 different language versions, in fewer than twelve years. [24] For this reason, there is a considerable interest in the project both academic and diverse fields such as information technology , business , project management , knowledge acquisition, software programming , other collaborative projects and sociology ,

Areas of reliability

Article Instability and susceptibility to bias are two potential problems in a crowdsourced work like Wikipedia

The reliability of Wikipedia articles can be measured by the following criteria:

  • Accuracy of information provided within articles
  • Appropriateness of the images provided with the article
  • Appropriateness of the style and focus of the articles [25]
  • Susceptibility to, and exclusion of, false information
  • Comprehensiveness, scope and coverage in articles and in the range of articles
  • Identification of reputable third-party sources as citations
  • Stability of the articles
  • Susceptibility to editorial and systemic bias
  • Quality of writing

The first four of these are the subjects of various studies of the project, while the presence of bias is strongly disputed, and the prevalence and quality of citations can be seen from Wikipedia. [26] In addition, the scientific research in the area of ​​computational mechanism for trust and reputation in virtual societies was oriented to increase the reliability and performance of electronic communities such as Wikipedia with more quantitative methods and temporal factors. [27]

In contrast with the previous intrinsic metrics, several “market-oriented” extrinsic measures demonstrate that broad audiences trust Wikipedia in one way or another. For instance, “50 percent of [US] physicians report that they have consulted … [Wikipedia] for information on health conditions”, according to IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. [28]

Assessments

Comparative studies

On October 24, 2005, British newspaper The Guardian published a story titled “Can you trust Wikipedia?” In which a panel of experts was asked to review seven entries related to their fields. [29] Scores ranged from 0 to 8, but most received marks between 5 and 8. The most common criticisms were:

  1. Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)
  2. Omissions or inaccuracies (3 mentions)
  3. Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention)

The most common praises were:

  1. Factual sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies (4 mentions)
  2. Much useful information, “Much information quickly” (3 mentions)

In December 2005, the journal Nature published results of an unsuccessful attempt to evaluate the accuracy of the data from Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica . The non-peer-reviewed study based Was it nature ‘s selection of 42 items is scientific topics, Including biographies of well-known scientists. The articles were reviewed for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers. Based on Their reviews, we average the Wikipedia Articles Were Described as 4 Containing errors or omissions, while the Britannica items 3. Only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in Encyclopædia Britannica . The study concluded that ”

Encyclopædia Britannica Expressed Concerns, Leading Nature to release further Top ict documentation of survey method. [30] Based on this additional information, Encyclopædia Britannica denied the validity of the nature study, stating that it was “fatally flawed”. Among Britannica ‘ s Criticisms Were That excerpts Rather than the full texts of Reviews some of Their products Were used, That Reviews some of the extracts Were compilations That included items written for the youth version of That Nature Did not check the factual assertions of ict reviewers, and That many of the reviewers were concerned. [31] Nature acknowledged the compiled nature of some of the Britannica extracts, but denied that this invalidated the conclusions of the study. [32] Encyclopædia Britannica also argued that the mistakes in the mistakes of the mistakes in Britannica were “errors of omission”, making ” Britannica far more accurate than Wikipedia , To the figures “. [31] Nature has since rejected the Britannica response, [33] stating that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia or excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particularities with Nature before publishing its “open Letter “rebuttal. [34] [35]

And the absence of any statistical analyzes (eg, reported intervals for study results) has also been noted. [38]

In June 2006, Roy Rosenzweig , a professor specializing in American history, published a comparison of the Wikipedia biographies of 25 Americans to the corresponding biographies found on Encarta and American National Biography Online . He wrote that Wikipedia is “surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in US history” and described some of the errors as “widely held but inaccurate beliefs.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search He also complained about the lack of “persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose”. [39] Wikipedia’s policies on original research ,

A web-based survey conducted from December 2005 to May 2006 by Larry Press, a professor of Information Systems at California State University at Dominguez Hills , assessed the “accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles”. [40] Fifty people accepted an invitation to assess an article. Of the fifty, seventy-six percent (76%) agreed or strongly agreed that the Wikipedia article was accurate, and forty-six percent (46%). Eighteen people compared the article to the article on the same topic in the Encyclopædia Britannica . Opinions on the two encyclopedias (6 favoring Britannica, 7 favoring Wikipedia, 5 stating they were equal), And the eighteen (61%) found Wikipedia somewhat or substantially more, for seven of the eighteen (39%) for Britannica. The survey did not attempt random selection of the participants, and it was not clear how the participants were invited. [41]

The German computing magazine c’t performed a comparison of Brockhaus Multimedial , Microsoft Encarta , and the German Wikipedia in October 2004: Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In general score, Wikipedia was rated 3.6 out of 5 points (B-). [42] A second test by c’t in February 2007 used 150 search terms, of which 56 were closely evaluated, to compare four digital encyclopedias: Bertelsmann Enzyklopädie 2007, Brockhaus Multimedial premium 2007, Encarta 2007 Enzyklopädie and Wikipedia. It concluded: “We have not found more errors in the texts of the free encyclopedia than in those of its commercial competitors.” [43]

Viewing Wikipedia as an economist in the marketplace of George Bragues ( University of Guelph-Humber ), Wikipedia’s articles on seven top Western philosophers: Aristotle , Plato , Immanuel Kant , René Descartes , Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel , Thomas Aquinas , and John Locke . Wikipedia has articles on a list of themes in philosophy. Bragues found that, on average, Wikipedia’s articles only covered 52% of consensus themes. No errors were found, but there were significant omissions. [44]

PC Pro magazine (August 2007) Asked experts to compare items oven (a small sample ) In Their scientific fields entre Wikipedia, Britannica and Encarta. In each case Wikipedia was described as “broadly sound”, “well handled”, “performs well”, “good for the bare facts” and “broadly accurate”. One article had “a marked deterioration towards the end”, while another had “clearer and more elegant” writing, a third was assessed as a well-written but better than a competitors, Its Encarta or Britannica equivalents “. No serious errors were noted in Wikipedia articles, but serious errors were noted in Encarta and one Britannica article. [45]

In October 2007, Australian magazine PC Authority published a feature article on the accuracy of Wikipedia. The article compares Britannica and Encarta . The magazines and articles on the subject. A total of four articles were reviewed by three experts. Wikipedia was to compare the other encyclopedias, topping the chemistry category. [46]

In December 2007, German magazine Stern published the results of a comparison between the German Wikipedia and the online version of the 15-volume edition of Brockhaus Enzyklopädie . (Cologne-based WIND GmbH ), whose analysts assessed 50 articles from each encyclopedia (covering politics, business, sports, science, culture, entertainment, geography, medicine, history and religion) Accuracy, completeness, timeliness and clarity), and judged Wikipedia articles to be more accurate on the average (1.6 on a scale from 1 to 6 versus 2.3 for Brockhaus, with 1 as the best and 6 as the worst). Wikipedia’s coverage was complete and up to date; HOWEVER, Brockhaus was judged to be more clearly written, but some were not criticized as being too complicated for non-experts, and many as too lengthy. [47] [48] [49]

In its April 2008 edition of the British computing magazine PC More compared the English Wikipedia with the DVD Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica , assessing for each the coverage of a series of random subjects. It concluded, “The quality of the content is good in all three cases” and advised Wikipedia users “Be aware that erroneous edits do occur, and check anything that seems outlandish with a second source. Accurate information. ” [50]

A 2008 paper in Reference Services Review Compared nine Wikipedia entries are historical topics to Their Counterparts in Encyclopædia Britannica , The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online . The paper found that Wikipedia’s entries had an overall accuracy rate of 80 percent, whereas the other encyclopedias had an accuracy rate of 95 to 96 percent. [51]

In April 2011, a study was published by Adam Brown of Brigham Young University in the journal PS Political Science & Politics which examined “thousands of Wikipedia articles about candidates, elections, and officeholders”. The study found that while information in these articles tended to be accurate, the articles examined contained many errors of omission. [52]

A 2012 study co-authored by Shane Greenstein Examined a decade of Wikipedia Articles are United States politics and found que la more contributors There Were to a Given article, the more neutral it tended to be, in line with a narrow interpretation of Linus’s Law . [53]

Reavley et al. (2012) compared the quality of articles on the mental health topics on Wikipedia with articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook. They asked experts to rate article content with regard to accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Contents 1 English Wikipedia has an article on: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [11]

A 2014 perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine examined Wikipedia pages about 22 prescription drugs to determine if they had the most recent FDA safety warnings. It found that 41% of these pages were updated within two weeks after the warning, 23% were more than two weeks later, and the remaining 2014. [54]

A 2014 study in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association examined 19 Wikipedia articles about herbal supplements , and concluded that all of these articles contained information about their “therapeutic uses and adverse effects” Pregnancy, and contraindications “. The authors recommend that patients be rely solely on the Wikipedia as a source for information about the herbal supplements in question. [55]

Another study published in 2014 in PLOS ONE found that Wikipedia’s information about pharmacology was 99.7% accurate when compared to a pharmacology textbook, and that the completeness of such information on Wikipedia was 83.8%. (68%) in the category “pharmacokinetics” and highest (91.3%) in the category “indication”. The authors concluded that “Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education.” [56]

Expert opinion

Librarians’ views

In a 2004 interview with The Guardian , self-described information specialist and Internet consultant [57] Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was “not aware of a single librarian who would”. He then explained that “the main problem is the lack of authority.” With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. [58]

A 2006 review of Wikipedia by Library Journal , using a panel of librarians, “the toughest critics of reference materials, whatever Their size” Asked “long standing reviewers” to evaluate-three areas of Wikipedia (popular culture, current affairs, and science) , And concluded: “While there is a need to provide a guarantee of access to the services of a third party, A reviewer who decided to explore controversial historical and current events, hoping to find glaring abuses “said,” I was pleased by Wikipedia’s objective presentation of controversial subjects ”

In 2007, Michael Gorman , Former President of the American Library Association (ALA) stated in an Encyclopædia Britannica blog that “A professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a dietician who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything” . [60]

The library at Trent University in Ontario states that “a lot of room for misinformation and bias [and] a lot of variability in both the quality and depth of articles”. It adds that Wikipedia has advantages and limitations, that it has “excellent coverage of technical topics” and articles are “often added quickly and, as a result, coverage of current events is quite good”. Achieve this task. It concludes that, one of the most important of all is the appropriateness of one’s sources, “whether you are looking for a fact,

An article for the Canadian Library Association (CLA) [62] discusses the Wikipedia approach, process and outcome in depth, commenting for example in controversial topics, “what is most remarkable is that the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version Of the article that both can more or less live with “. The author comments that:

In fact Wikipedia has more institutional structure than at first appears. Some 800 experienced users are designated as administrators, with special powers of binding and loosing: they can protect and unprotect, delete and undelete and revert articles, and block and unblock users. They are expected to use their powers in a neutral way, forming and implementing the consensus of the community. The effect of their interventions in the discussion of most contentious articles. Wikipedia has survived this long because it is easier to reverse vandalism than it is to commit it …

Information Today (March 2006) cites librarian Nancy O’Neill (Principal Librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System) as saying that there is a good deal of skepticism about Wikipedia in the library community Cheerfully that Wikipedia makes a good starting place for a search. You get terminology, names, and a feel for the subject. ” [63]

PC Pro (August 2007) cites the head of the European and American Collections at the British Library , Stephen Bury, as Stating “Wikipedia is Potentially a good thing-It provides a speedier response to new events, and to new evidence on old items” . The article concludes: “For [Bury], the problem is not so much the reliability of Wikipedia’s content so much as the way in which it’s used.” “Bury says,” This is not a problem. ” According to Bury, the trick to be used in this article is “just because it’s an anonymous encyclopedia.

Academe

This section may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia . See Wikipedia’s articles for suggestions. (April 2017) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message )

Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source and as Wikipedia editors may have expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute. [64] [65] Adrian Riskin, a mathematician in Whittier College commented That while highly technical items May be written by mathematicians for mathematicians, the more general math topics, Such As the item is polynomials , are written in a very amateurish fashion with a Number of obvious mistakes. [66]

Because Wikipedia can not be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a External sources. [64] [67] [68] The criticism of not being a reliable source, however, may not be applied to Wikipedia, but to encyclopedias in general-some university lecturers are not impressed when students cite print-based encyclopedias in assigned work. [69] However, it seems that the use of the Wikipedia in academia for these concerns. Researchers and academics contend that while Wikipedia may be used as a source for final papers, it is a valuable jumping off point for research that may lead to many possibilities if approached critically. What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We should not dismiss Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, and the free encyclopedia. On the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings. [70] It is a valuable jumping off point for research that can lead to many possibilities if approached critically. What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We shoulds not dismiss Wikipedia Entirely (there are less inaccuracies than there are errors of omission) goal Rather begin to bracket it, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an education tool in tandem with critical thinking skills That will allow students to filter the information found On the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings. [70] It is a valuable jumping off point for research that can lead to many possibilities if approached critically. What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We should not dismiss Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, and the free encyclopedia. On the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings. [70] We should not dismiss Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, the free encyclopedia, and the free encyclopedia. On the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings. [70] We shoulds not dismiss Wikipedia Entirely (there are less inaccuracies than there are errors of omission) goal Rather begin to bracket it, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an education tool in tandem with critical thinking skills That will allow students to filter the information found On the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings. [70]

An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a Nottingham University Business School lecturer in Information Systems, [71] the subject of a review on the technical web site Ars Technica , [72] involving 55 academics (Group 1) or chosen at random (group 2), concluded that: “The experts found that the results of this study are not accurate. (10% of the experts in the field of data protection,3% of them reported spelling errors). ” [73]

The Gould Library at Carleton College in Minnesota has a web page describing the use of Wikipedia in academia. It asserts that “Wikipedia is without a valuable and informative resource”, but that it is an inherent lack of reliability and stability to its articles, again drawing attention to similar advantages and limitations as other sources. As a result, we can not afford to make a mistake. ” It cited Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales ‘ view that Wikipedia suggests that at least, One strength of Wikipedia is that it provides a good starting point for current information on a very wide range of topics. [74]

In 2007, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an article written by Cathy Davidson , Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies and English at Duke University , in which she asserts that Wikipedia should be used to teach students about the concepts of reliability and credibility. [75]

In 2008, Hamlet Isakhanli , founder and president of Khazar University , Compared the Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia English items are Azerbaijan and related subjects. His study found that Wikipedia covered the subject much more widely, more accurately and in more detail, though with some lack of balance, and that Wikipedia was the best source for the first approximation. [76]

Geoffrey Nunberg , an adjunct full professor at UC Berkeley’s School of Information, Has Criticized Wikipedia Relying too much for one Citing sources Even Though the sources Said May not be more accurate than Wikipedia Itself. [77] [78]

Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but are not elevated to the same level as traditional references. For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced in “enhanced perspectives” provided on-line in the journal Science . A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light, [79] and dozens of enhanced prospects have provided such links since then. The publisher of Science states that these include “hypernotes-which link directly to the websites of other relevant information available online-beyond the standard bibliographic references”. [80]

Journalism and use of Wikipedia in the newsroom

In his 2014 book Virtual Unreality , Charles Seife , a professor of journalism at New York University , noted Wikipedia ‘s susceptibility to hoaxes and misinformation, including manipulation by commercial and political organizations “masquerading as common people” making edits to Wikipedia. In conclusion, Seife presented the following advice: [20]

Wikipedia is an old and unccentric uncle.

He can be a lot of fun-over the years he’s seen a lot, and he can tell a great story. He’s also no dummy; He’s accumulated a lot of information and has some strong opinions about what he’s gathered. You can learn a bit from him. But take everything he says with a grain of salt. A lot of the things he thinks he knows for sure are not quite right, or are taken out of context. And when it comes down to it, sometimes he believes things that are a little bit, well, nuts.

If it ever matters to you whether it is a real or fictional, it’s crucial to check it out with a more reliable source. [20]

Seife observed that when bogus information from Wikipedia spreads to other publications, it sometimes alters truth itself. [20] On 28 June 2012, for example, an anonymous Wikipedia contributor added the invented nickname “Millville Meteor” to the Wikipedia biography of baseball player Mike Trout . A couple of weeks later, a Newsday sports writer reproduced the nickname in an article, and “with that act, the fake nickname became real”. [20] Seife pointed out that while Wikipedia, by some standards, could be described as “roughly as accurate” as traditional publications,

In November 2012, Lord Leveson was accused of having forgotten “one of the elementary rules of journalism” when he named “Brett Straub” as one of the founders of the Independent newspaper in his report on the culture, practices and ethics of the British Press . Wikipedia article on The Independent of a 25-year-old Californian, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [82] Straub was tracked down by The Telegraph and commented, “The fact that a Wikipedia is kind of shocking. My friend went on and edited a bunch of Wikipedia pages and put my name there. […] I knew my friend had done it but I did not know how to change them back and I thought someone would. At one point I was the creator of Coca-Cola or something. You know how easy it is to change Wikipedia. Every time he comes across a red linked name he put my name in his place. ” [83]

A 2016 BBC article by Ciaran McCauley similarly noted that “plenty of mischievous, made-up information has its way” on to Wikipedia and that “many of these fakes facts have fallen through the cracks and been taken gospel by everyone from university academics To major newspapers and broadcasters. ” [21] Listing examples of journalists being embarrassed by reproducing hoaxes and other falsifications from Wikipedia in their writing, including bogus information propagated by major news organizations in their obituaries of Maurice Jarre and Ronnie Hazlehurst , McCauley stated that

Wikipedia with anything but skepticism (you can imagine the kicking I’ve taken over this article). [21]

The Daily Mail – the source of the unpredictable, unpredictable, unpredictable, unpredictable, unpredictable, and unpredictable information. [84]

Science and medicine

Main article: Health information on Wikipedia

Science and medicine are areas Where accuracy is of high importance and peer review is the norm. While some of Wikipedia’s content has passed a form of peer review, most has not. [85]

A 2008 study examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The Researchers found FEW factual errors in this set of articles, thesis goal Determined That Were Often items missing significant information like contraindicationsand drug interactions . One of the researchers noted that “If people go and use this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional … those are the types of negative impacts that can occur.” The researchers also report on the use of medications in the treatment of HIV / AIDS . They have determined that MDR provided answers to 82.5 percent of the questions, While Wikipedia could only answer 40 percent and Wikipedia as well. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: “I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]”, and he pointed out that drug companies have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia. [10] But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: “I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]”, and he pointed out that drug companies have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia. [10] But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: “I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]”, and he pointed out that drug companies have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia. [10]

A 2009 surveyed US toxicologists how accurately they rated the portrayal of health risks of chemicals in different media sources. It was based on the answers of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology and found that these experts regarded Wikipedia’s reliability in this area as far as that of all traditional news media:

In this paper, we present the results of the new media: WebMD and Wikipedia. WebMD is one of the most widely used and widely acclaimed health care providers in the world. By contrast, only 15 percent describe as accurate as the portrayals of chemical risk found in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. [8]

abase” and that “sub-analysis comparing common To uncommon cancers demonstrated no difference between the two “. [86]

A study in 2011 has been published in the United States, Canada, the United States and the United States. [87] Other categories with incomplete coverage were descriptions of off-label indications, contraindications and precautions, adverse drug events and dosing. [87] Information is often deviating from other sources used in the study of drugs and adverse drug events. [87]

A 2012 study Reported That Wikipedia Articles about pediatric otolaryngology contained twice as Many errors and omissions as the medical database eMedicine . [88]

In a US study in 2014, 10 researchers examined 10 Wikipedia health articles of the most costly medical conditions in the United States and found that 90% of the entries contained errors and statements that contradicted latest medical research. Stevie Benton of Wikimedia Commons. [89] [90]

A 2014 study published in PLOS One look at the quality of Wikipedia articles on pharmacology , comparing articles from English and German Wikipedia with academic textbooks. It found that “the collaborative and participatory design of Wikipedia does generate high quality information on pharmacology that is suitable for undergraduate medical education”. [91]

Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica 

In a 2004 piece called “The Faith-Based Encyclopedia,” Robert McHenry , a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica , stated that Wikipedia errs in billing itself as an encyclopedia, Can not be possessed by an openly editable reference. McHenry argued that “the typical user encyclopedias achieve reliability, only that they do”. [92] He added:

[H] owever closely a Wikipedia article may have some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler … The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, Is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he does not know beforehand. ” [92]

Similarly, Britannica ‘ s executive editor, Ted Pappas , Was quoted in The Guardian as Saying:

The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven. [58]

In the September 12, 2006 edition of The Wall Street Journal , Jimmy Wales debated with Dale Hoiberg , editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica . Focused Hoiberg was need for expertise and control in an encyclopedia and Cited Lewis Mumford That overwhelming information could “bring about a state of intellectual enervation and depletion Hardly to be distinguished from mass ignorance.” Wales emphasized Wikipedia’s differences, and asserted that openness and transparency lead to quality. Hoiberg replied that he “had neither the time nor space to respond to [criticisms]” and “could corral any number of links to articles alleging errors in Wikipedia”, to which Wales responded: “No problem!

Information loop

Main article: Circular reporting
A diagram of “citogenesis”

Circular reporting was a problem for Wikipedia. Sources accepted as reliable for Wikipedia as a reference source, sometimes indirectly. Wikipedia is a registered trademark in the United States and / or other countries of the United States of America. This in turn increases the likelihood of the false information being reported in other media. [94] A known example is the Sacha Baron Cohen article, where false information added in Wikipedia was apparently used by two newspapers, leading to it being treated as reliable in Wikipedia. [95] This process of creating reliable sources for false facts has been termed “citogenesis” by webcomic artist Randall Munroe . [96] [97] [98]

Propagation of misinformation

Somewhat related to the “information loop”, but perhaps more worrisome, is the propagation of misinformation to other websites (Answers.com is just one of many) Wikipedia . A piece of misinformation originally taken from a Wikipedia article will also be deleted the unreliable material. [99]

Other

In one article, Information Today (March 2006) likens [63] comparisons between Wikipedia and Britannica to ” apples and oranges “:

Even the revered Encyclopædia Britannica is riddled with errors, not to mention the subtle yet pervasive biases of individual subjectivity and corporate correctness … There is no one perfect way. Britannica seems to claim that there is. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Librarians and information professionals have always known this. That’s why we’re looking at multiple sources and counseling.

Jonathan Sidener of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote that “vandalism and self-serving misinformation [are] commonly in the political articles.” [100]

Andrew Orlowski , a columnist for The Register , expressed similar criticisms in 2005, writing that the use of the term “encyclopedia” to describe Wikipedia may be more reliable than it may be. [101]

BBC technology specialist Bill Thompson wrote that “Most Wikipedia entries are written and submitted in good faith, and we should not let the contentious areas such as politics, religion or biography shape our view of the project as a whole Starting point for serious research but that: [102]

No information source is guaranteed to be accurate, and we should not be in a position to mistake it. As a primary source of information … It is the same with search engine results. Just because something comes up in the top 10 on MSN Search or Google does not automatically give it credibility or vouch for its accuracy or importance. [102]

Thompson adds the observation that since most popular online sources are inherently unreliable in this way, one byproduct of the information age is a wiser audience who are learning to check information Of how to evaluate information sources “. [102]

The Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Commr. Of Customs, Bangalore vs. ACER India Pvt. (Citation 2007 (12) SCALE581) has held that “We have referred to Wikipedia, as the learned Counsel for the parts relied on itupon. It is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered there by any person . ” [103]

In his 2007 book , Simon Fowler is the author of “The Best General Resource for Military History in the Internet , ” and stated that “the results are broadly accurate and free of bias”. [104] When rating the Wikipedia as the No. 1 military site he mentioned that “Wikipedia is often criticized for its inaccuracy and bias, but in my experience the military history articles are spot on.” [105]

In July 2008, The Economist magazine described Wikipedia as “a user-generated reference service” and noted that Wikipedia’s “elaborate moderation rules put a limit to acrimony” generated by cyber-nationalism. [106]

Jimmy Wales, a co-founder of Wikipedia, stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not only appropriate as primary sources, and should not be relied upon as being authoritative. [107]

Carnegie Mellon Professor Randy Pausch offered the following anecdote in his book The Last Reading . That He Was surprised His entry to World Book Encyclopedia is virtual reality Was accepted without question, so he Concluded, “I now believe Wikipedia is a perfectly fine source for your information because i know what the quality control is for real encyclopedias.” [108]

Removal of false information

Fernanda Vià © gas of the MIT Media Lab and Martin Wattenberg and Kushal Dave of the IBM Research in the flow of editing in the Wikipedia model, with emphasis on breaks in flow (from vandalism or substantial rewrites), showing the dynamic flow of material over time. [109] From a sample of vandalism edits on the English Wikipedia during May 2003,

We have examined many pages on Wikipedia that treat controversial topics, and have discovered that most have, in fact, been vandalized at some point in their history. But we have also found that vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly-so quickly that most users will never see its effects. [110]

They also stated that “it is essentially impossible to find a crisp definition of vandalism”. [109]

Lih (2004) compared articles before and after they were mentioned in the press, and found that externally referenced articles are of higher quality work.

An informal assessment by the popular IT magazine PC Pro for ict 2007 article “Wikipedia Uncovered” [45] tested Wikipedia by Introducing 10 errors That “varied entre bleeding Obvious and deftly subtle” into sections (the Researchers later corrected the Articles They HAD edited) . “The Wikipedians’ tools and know-how were just too much for our team.” A second series of another 10 tests, using “far more subtle errors” and other techniques to conceal their nature, puts similar results: ”

A study in late 2007 systematically inserted inaccuracies into Wikipedia entries about the lives of philosophers. Depending on whether the data are interpreted or not, they were corrected within 48 hours. [111]

A 2007 peer-reviewed study [112] completed with: “damaged” content concluded:

42% of damage is repaired almost immediately, ie, before it can confuse, offend, or mislead anyone. Nonetheless, there are still millions of damaged views.

Loc Vu-Quoc , Professor for Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Florida , stated in 2008 that “sometimes errors may go for years without being corrected as experts do not usually read Wikipedia articles in their own field to correct these errors”. [113]

Susceptibility to bias

Individual bias and the WikiScanner tool

Main article: WikiScanner

In August 2007, WikiScanner, a tool developed by Virgil Griffith of the California Institute of Technology, was released to match anonymous IP in the encyclopedia with an extensive database of addresses. News stories about the Central Intelligence Agency , the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee , Diebold, Inc. and the Australian government are used to make edits to Wikipedia articles, sometimes of an opinion or questionable nature. [114] The BBC quoted a Wikimedia spokesperson: “We really value transparency and the scanner really takes this to another level.

The WikiScanner story was also covered by The Independent , which stated that many “censorial interventions” by editors with vested interests in a variety of articles in Wikipedia had been discovered:

[Wikipedia] was hailed as a breakthrough in the democratization of knowledge. But the online encyclopedia has since been hijacked by forces who decided that it would be a good idea to make a decision. It has turned out to be hugely embarrassing for armies of political spin doctors and corporate revisionists who believed their censorial interventions had gone unnoticed. [116]

Not everyone hailed WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia. Oliver Kamm , in a column for The Times , argued instead that: [117]

The WikiScanner is an important development in bringing down a pernicious influence on our intellectual life. Critics of the web decry the medium as the cult of the amateur. Wikipedia is worse than that; It is the province of the covert lobby. The most constructive race is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions.

WikiScanner only reveals conflict of interest when the editor does not have a Wikipedia account and their IP address is used instead. Conflict of interest editing done by editors with accounts is not detected, since those are anonymous to everyone-except for a handful of privileged Wikipedia admins . [118]

Coverage

See also: Criticism of Wikipedia § Systemic bias in coverage , and Academic studies about Wikipedia § A minority of editors produce the majority of persistent content

Wikipedia has an accused of systemic bias , which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. Although many articles have been published in the literature, this article has been published in the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia. In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine (London) philosopher Martin Cohen frames Wikipedia of having “become a monopoly” with “all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators”, which he describes as a “youthful cab-drivers” perspective. [119] Cohen’s argument, However, finds a serious conclusion in these circumstances: “To control the reference sources sources that can be used to control the way people comprehend the world.” Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath Freedom of thought. ” [119] That’s what we do on Wikipedia, “not your sources but the support of the community.” [119] [119] That’s what we do on Wikipedia, “not your sources but the support of the community.” [119] [119] That’s what we do on Wikipedia, “not your sources but the support of the community.” [119]

Critics also point to the tendency to cover topics in a detail disproportionate to their importance. For example, Stephen Colbert once mockingly Wikipedia Praised for Having a “skirt entry on ‘ lightsabers ‘ than it does on the ‘ printing press ‘.” [120] In an interview with The Guardian , Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica , NOTED:

People write of things they are interested in, and so many subjects do not get covered; And news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art , and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair . [58]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jon Hendren [121] of the website Something Awful . [122] In the game, two articles (preferably with similar names) are compared: one about an acknowledged serious or classical subject and the other about a popular topic or current event. [123] Defenders of a broad encyclopedia’s coverage of pop culture does not impose space constraints on the cover of more serious subjects (see ” Wiki is not paper “). As Ivor Tossell noted:

That Wikipedia is chock full of useless arcana (and did you know, by the way, that the article on “Debate” is shorter than the piece that weighs the relative merits of the 1978 and 2003 versions of Battlestar Galactica? Knock against it: Since it can grow infinitely, the silly articles are not depriving the serious ones of space. [124]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger stated in 2004, “when it comes to most important topics”, the project’s credibility is very uneven. ” [125] In a GamesRadar editorial, columnist Charlie Barrat Juxtaposed Wikipedia’s coverage of video game -related article topics with smaller icts happy about topics That Greater-have real-world significance, Such As God, World War II and US presidents form. [126]

Wikipedia has an open source content repository. Its editors have also argued that, as a website, Wikipedia is able to include articles in a greater number of subjects than print encyclopedias can. [127]

A Wikipedia article: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These biases include those pertaining to the cultures of both the United States and Poland on each of the corresponding-language Wikipedias, as well as a pro-US / English-language bias on both of them. [128]

Notability of article topics
This section is transcluded from Criticism of Wikipedia . ( Edit | history )

Criticism of Wikipedia

Liberal bias

According to Jimmy Wales: “The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) The Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the US population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the US population. [134] A number of politically conservative commentators have argued that Wikipedia’s coverage is affected by liberal bias . Andrew Schlafly created Conservapedia because he found Wikipedia “increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American” for its frequent use of British spelling and coverage of topics like creationism and the effect of Christianity on the Renaissance . [135] In 2007, an article in The Christian Post criticized Wikipedia’s coverage of intelligent design , which was biased and hypocritical. [136] Lawrence Solomon of the National Review stated that Wikipedia articles on subjects like global warming , intelligent design, and Roe v. Wade are slanted in favor of liberal views. [137]

In a September 2010 issue of the conservative weekly Human Events , Rowan Scarborough presented a critique of Wikipedia’s coverage of American politicians’ prominent approach to the midterm elections as evidence of systemic liberal bias. Scarborough compares the biographical data of liberal and conservative opponents in Senate races in the Alaska Republican and the Delaware and Nevada general election, emphasizing the amount of negative coverage of tea party -endorsed candidates. He also cites some criticism by Lawrence Solomon and his article on the conservative wiki Conservapedia as evidence of an underlying bias. [138]

American and corporate media bias

Tim Anderson, a senior lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney , said that Wikipedia administrators display a US-oriented bias in their interaction with editors, and in their determination of sources that are appropriate for use on the site. Anderson Was outraged after-Several of the sources he used in His edits to Hugo Chávez , Including Venezuela Analysis and Z Magazine , Were Disallowed as “unusable”. Anderson also described Wikipedia ‘s “aides” as “a facade”, and that Wikipedia “hides behind a reliance on corporate media editorials”. [139]

Reliability as a source in other contexts

Although Wikipedia is not a source, it has been used as evidence in legal cases. In January 2007, the New York Times reported that it had been published in the United States of America, Matrimonial issues. [141]

In April 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that in the five years since the 2007 New York Times story, federal courts of appeals had cited Wikipedia about 95 times. The history of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the United States of America. [142]

In one notable case, the trademark of Formula One racing decision, [143] the UK Intellectual Property Office considered both the reliability of Wikipedia and its usefulness as a reliable source of evidence:

Wikipedia has some suffered from the self-editing that is intrinsic to it, giving rise to times to potentially libellous statements. However, inherently, I can not see that what is in Wikipedia is any less likely to be true than what is published in a book or on the websites of news organizations. [Formula One’s lawyer] did not express any concerns about the Wikipedia evidence [presented by the plaintiff]. I consider that the evidence from Wikipedia can be taken at face value. ”

The case turned upon substantively evidence Cited from Wikipedia in 2006 as to the use and interpretation of the term Formula One .

In the United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims has ruled that “Wikipedia may not be reliable source of information.” [144] and “… Articles [from Wikipedia] A review of the Wikipedia website about a pervasive and disturbing series of disclaimers . .. “. [141] [145] Such disclaimers include the Wikipedia not being able to guarantee the validity of the information on its articles and having no formal peer review.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School, is a professor at the University of New York, “The most critical fact is public acceptance”, therefore “a judge should not use Wikipedia”. [146]

The Virginia Tech massacre , when The New York Times quotes Wikimedia to report 750,000 page views of the article in the two days after the event:

Even The Roanoke Times , which is published near Blacksburg, Virginia , where the university is located, noted on Thursday that Wikipedia “has emerged as the clearinghouse for detailed information on the event”. [147]

The Washington Post commented, in the context of the 2008 Presidential election candidate biographies, that in particular occasional brief vandalism, “it’s hard to find a more up-to-date, detailed, thorough article onObama than Wikipedia’s. ), Obama’s article-more than 22 pages long, with 15 sections covering his personal and professional life-had a reference list of 167 sources. ” [148]

Broad opinions

Several commentators have drawn a middle ground, asserting that the project has much valuable knowledge and has some reliability, even if the degree is not assessed with certainty.

Others Taking this view include danah boyd , [sic] Who in 2005 Discussed Wikipedia as an academic source, Concluding That “[i] t will never be an encyclopedia, aim it will Contain extensive knowledge That is quite valuable for different purposes”, [ 149] and Bill Thompson who stated “I use the Wikipedia a lot. It is a good starting point for serious research, but I would never accept that I read there without checking.” [102]

Information Today ‘ s March 2006 article [63] concludes on a similar theme:

The disadvantage is that it is a very low-income person. Almost every source includes errors … Many non-fiction books have been produced via an appallingly sloppy process … In this author’s opinion, the flap over Wikipedia was overblown, but contained a silver lining: Of acceptance information at face value. They have learned to consult just one source.

Dan Gillmor , a Silicon Valley commentator and author commented in October 2004 that, “I do not think anyone is saying Wikipedia is an absolute replacement for a traditional encyclopedia. I have found. ” [58]

Larry Sanger stated on Kuro5hin in 2001 that “Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow”, [150] which is a paraphrase of Linus’ law of open-source development.

Likewise, technology figure Joi Ito wrote on Wikipedia’s authority, “[a] lthough it depends on the field, the question is whether or not it is more likely to come from a source (With the ability to comment) and has survived. ” [151]

In a 2008 letter to the editor of Physics Today , Gregg Jaeger , an associate professor at Boston University , [152] has a Wikipedia as a medium that is susceptible to fostering anarchy and distortions in relation to scientific information. [153] The letter Was in response to a review de son book Quantum Information: An Overview , That HAD Questioned “whether there is an audience for Such encyclopedic texts, Especially Given the easy access to online sources of information Such As the arXiv e Print server and Wikipedia. ”

[162] Periodicals That publish items featuring citations of Wikipedia as a source include the American science magazine Skeptic [163] [164] and Skeptical Inquirer . [165] In the January 2013 episode of his talk show, Stossel, about how ideas can flourish without regulation, journalist John Stossel interviewed Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, and discussed the success of Wikipedia’s model versus that of Britannica, That his own Wikipedia article exhibited only one error. [166] John Stossel interviewed Wikipedia about Jimmy Wales , a journalist and author of the article ” Stop the Storm”. [166] John Stossel interviewed Wikipedia about Jimmy Wales , a journalist and author of the article ” Stop the Storm”. [166]

Jean Goodwin wrote on the reasons why Wikipedia may be trusted. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of Wikipedia, the Free Online Encyclopedia. [167]

Tools for testing the reliability of articles

Screenshot of Wiki-Watch item rating of the BBB of Wikipedia rated as reliable source and additional orange marks for questionable edits wikitrust

Wikipedia is reliable and easy to use and does not contain any kind of malware, adware and viruses. University of California, United States of America. Wiki-Watch from Germany, which was inspired by the WikiBu from Switzerland . Part of this is the rating tool wikitrust qui shows the trustworthiness of single text parts of Wikipedia Articles by white (trustworthy) or orange (not trustworthy) markings. [168]

Notable incidents

See also: List of Wikipedia controversies

False biographical information

Cached version of a deleted biographical hoax in Wikipedia. Created in January 2007, the article on the fictional 18th century naturalist Léon Robert de L’Astran was not deleted until June 2010, when a historian identified it as a hoax. [169]

Inaccurate information may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged. The most prominent cases reported by mainstream media are biographies of living persons.

The Seigenthaler incident, the subject of a biographical article. In May 2005, a user edited the biographical article on John Seigenthaler Sr. so that it contained several false and defamatory statements. [18] The inaccurate claims went unnoticed between May and September 2005 when they were discovered by Victor S. Johnson, Jr. , a friend of Seigenthaler. Wikipedia content is often mirrored at sites such as Answers.com , which means that incorrect information can be replicated alongside correct information through a number of web sources.

Then [Seigenthaler’s] his discovered that his father’s hoax biography also appeared on two other sites, Reference.com and Answers.com, which had direct feeds from Wikipedia. It was out there for four months before Seigenthaler realized and got the Wikipedia entry with a more reliable account. The hotel is located in the heart of downtown.

Seth Finkelstein Reported in an item in The Guardian On His efforts to remove His own biography page from Wikipedia, simply Because It Was Subjected to defamation : [171]

Wikipedia has a short biography of me, originally added in February 2004, mostly concerned with my internet civil liberties achievements. After discovering in May 2006 that it had been vandalised in March, possibly by a long-time opponent, and that the attack had been subsequently propagated to many other sites which (legally) repackage Wikipedia’s content Harmful rather than helpful.

For people who are not very prominent, Wikipedia biographies can be an ” attractive nuisance “. It says, to every troll, vandal, and score-settler: “Here’s an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. The status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia. “

In the same article Finkelstein recounts how he voted his own biography as “not notable enough” in order to have it removed from Wikipedia. Angela Beesley, formerly a prominent member of the foundation which runs Wikipedia.

In November 2005, the biography of Jens Stoltenberg , the Norwegian Prime Minister, was edited to contain libelous statements. [172]

Taner Akçam , a Turkish history professor at the University of Minnesota , was detained at the Montreal airport, as his article was vandalized by Turkish nationalists in 2007. While this mistake was resolved, he was again arrested in US for the same suspicion two days later . [173]

In Reviews another example, on March 2, 2007, msnbc.com Reported That Hillary Clinton HAD beens Incorrectly listed for 20 months in her Wikipedia biography as valedictorian of her class of 1969 at Wellesley College . (Hillary Rodham was not the valedictorian, although she did not speak at the beginning .) [174] The article included a link to the Wikipedia edit, [175] where the incorrect information was added on July 9, 2005. After the msnbc.com report , The inaccurate information was removed the same day. [176] Between the two edicts, the wrong information had been in the Clinton article while it was edited more than 4,800 times over 20 months.

Attempts to perpetrate hoaxes may not be confined to editing Wikipedia articles. In October 2005 Alan Mcilwraith , a call center worker from Scotland created a Wikipedia article in which he claimed to be highly decorated war hero. The article was quickly identified by other users as unreliable (see Wikipedia Signpost article 17 April 2006 ). However, Mcilwraith had also succeeded in convincing a number of charities and media organizations that he was asked to be: [177]

The 28-year-old, who calls himself Captain Sir Alan McIlwraith, KBE, DSO, MC, has mixed with celebrities for at least one fundraising event. But last night, an Army spokesman said: “I can confirm he is a fraud. He has never been an officer, soldier or cadet.”

In May 2010, French politician Ségolène Royal publicly praised the memory of Leon-Robert of the Astran, an 18th-century naturalist , humanist and son of a slave trader, who had opposed the slave trade. The newspaper Sud-Ouest revealed a month later that of the Astran had never existed-except the subject of an article in the French Wikipedia . Historian Jean-Louis Mahé discovered that of the Astran was fictional after a student, interested by Royal’s praise of him, asked Mahé about him. Mahé’s research led him to realize that of the Astran did not exist in any archives, and he traced the hoax back to the Rotary Club of La Rochelle . The article, Created by members of the Club in January 2007, had already been available for three years-unsourced-before the hoax was uncovered. Upon South West ‘ s revelation-repeated in other major French-Wikipedia administrator DonCamillo immediately deleted the article. [19] [169] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]

There are also instances of users who have deliberately inserted false information into Wikipedia in order to test the system and demonstrate its alleged unreliability. For example, Gene Weingarten , a journalist, published in 2007 by anonymously inserting false information into his own biography. The fabrications were removed 27 hours later by a Wikipedia editor who was regularly watching changes to that article. [183] Television personality Stephen Colbert lampooned this drawback of Wikipedia, calling it wikiality .

“Death by Wikipedia” is a phenomenon in which a person erroneously proclaimed dead through vandalism. Articles about the comedian Paul Reiser , Vernon Kay , and the West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd , who died on June 28, 2010, have been vandalized in this way. [184] [185] [186]

Wikipedia considers vandalism as “any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia”. The Wikipedia page ” Researching with Wikipedia ” states:

Wikipedia does not have the right to modify, modify or revise the contents of this page without notice. While blatant vandalism is usually spotted and rapidly corrected, Wikipedia is definitely subject to subtle vandalism than a typical reference work.

Other false information

In June 2007, an anonymous Wikipedia contributor was involved in the Chris Benoit double murder and suicide because of an unverified piece of information he added to the Chris Benoit Wikipedia article. This information regarding Benoit’s wife’s death was added fourteen hours before police discovered the bodies of Benoit and his family. [187] Police detectives seized computer equipment from the man held responsible for the postings, but believed he was uninvolved and did not press charges. [188]

The IP address from the edit qui Was Made Was traced to Earlier instances of Wikipedia vandalism. The contributor apologized on Wikinews , saying:

I will never vandalize anything on Wikipedia or post wrongful information. I will never post anything here again unless it is pure fact … [189]

On 29 August 2008, shortly after the first round draw was completed for UEFA Europa League soccer cup, an edit was made to the article for the football club AC Omonia , apparently by users of the website B3ta , [190]which added the following erroneous Information to the section titled “The Fans”.

A small but loyal group of fans are lovingly called “The Zany Ones” -they like to wear hats made from discarded shoes and have a song about a little potato.

On 18 September 2008, David Anderson, a British journalist writing for the Daily Mirror , quoted this in his match preview of Omnia’s game with Manchester City , which appeared in the web and print versions of the Mirror and the nickname was quoted in subsequent editions On 19 September. [191 ]

In a 2009 incident, University College Dublin sociology student Shane Fitzgerald added an incorrect quote to the article on the recently deceased Maurice Jarre composer . Fitzgerald wanted to demonstrate the potential dangers of news reporters’ reliance on the internet for information. [193] Although Fitzgerald’s edits were removed three times from the Wikipedia article for lack of sourcing, [194] they were nevertheless copied into obituary columns in newspapers worldwide. [195] Fitzgerald believes that if he did not come forward his quote would have remained in history as fact. [194]

The White Cliffs of Dover The Death of Norman Wisdom in October 2010 The White Cliffs of Dover “. [196]

After the 2010 FIFA World Cup , FIFA President Sepp Blatter was presented with the Order of the Companions of Oliver Reginald Tambo . The citation, however, read: “The Order of the Companions of OR Tambo in Gold-awarded to Joseph Sepp Bellend Blatter (1936-) for his exceptional contribution to the field of football and support for the Fifa World Cup African continent, “after the name on his Wikipedia entry was vandalised. [197]

In the 2012 Asian Football Confederation, the United Arab Emirates will be able to compete in the 2015 AFC Asian Cup. This was the indirect result of vandalism of the Wikipedia article on the team, and the AFC was forced to apologize for what was perceived as a racist slur. [198] [199]

The Wikipedia hoax “Bicholim conflict” which in 2007 won the status of ” Good Article .”

In December 2012, an article titled “Bicholim Conflict” was deleted after standing since 2007. [200] It talked about a war that took place in India between the years 1640 and 1641, but was later confirmed to be completely fictitious. [201] The hoax article had won Wikipedia’s “Good Article” award, a status conferred on fewer than 1 percent of articles on the site, a few months after its creation in 2007, and held that status for five years. [202]

In March 2013, it was discovered that both Wikipedia and IMDB had for three-and-a-half years Russian filmmaker named Yuri Gadyukin. False information was a plan for both sexes. [203]

In May 2014, the New Yorker reported that a 17-year-old student had added an invented nickname to the Wikipedia article on the coati in 2008, saying coatis was also known as “Brazilian aardvarks “. The taxonomically false information, inserted as a private joke, lasted for six years in Wikipedia and over this time and even books published by University presses. It was only removed from Wikipedia after the publication of the New Yorker article, in which the student explained how the joke had come about. [14] [15]

In March 2015, it was known that an article on Wikipedia entitled ” Jar’Edo Wens “, purportedly about an Australian aboriginal deity of that name, was a hoax. The article had survived for more than nine years before being deleted, making it the longest-lived documented hoax article in Wikipedia’s history. The Article spawned mentions of the fake god we Numerous other websites as well as in an academic book titled Atheism and the Case Against Christ . [204] [205] [206]

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Main article: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Political interests and advocacy

While Wikipedia policy requires-have items to a neutral Point of view, there-have-been Attempts to square has spin one items. In January 2006, several staffers of members of the US House of Representatives attempted to cleanse their respective bosses’ biographies on Wikipedia, and to insert negative remarks on political opponents. References to a campaign promised by Martin Meehan to surrender his seat in 2000 were deleted, and negative comments were inserted into the articles on US Senator Bill Frist and Eric Cantor , a congressman from Virginia . Numerous other exchange Were Made from an IP address qui is assigned to the House of Representatives. [207] In an interview, Jimmy Wales remarked that the changes were “not cool.” [208]

On August 31, 2008, The New York Times ran an article detailing the edits made to the biography of Sarah Palin in her nomination as running mate of John McCain . During the 24 hours before the McCain campaign announcement, 30 edits , many of the flattering details, by the Wikipedia single-purpose user identity Young Trigg. Wikipedia user accounts. McCain campaign, and having some Wikipedia user accounts. [209] [210]

Larry Delay, and Pablo Bachelet, who write about their prospects, some articles dealing with Latin American history and groups (such as the Sandinistas and Cuba ), Marxist perspective which treats socialist dictatorships favorably at the expense of alternate positions . [211] [212] [213]

In November 2007, libelous accusations were made against two politicians from southwestern France, Jean-Pierre Grand and Hélène Mandroux-Colas , on their Wikipedia biographies. Jean-Pierre Grand Chairman of the French National Assembly and the Prime Minister of France to strengthen the legislation on the penal responsibility of Internet sites. [214] Senator Jean Louis Masson then asked the Minister of Justice to tell him whether it would be possible to increase the criminal responsibilities of hosting providers, site operators, and authors of libelous content; The minister declined to do so, Recalling the existing rules in the LCEN law. [215]

In 2009, Wikipedia banned the Church of Scientology from its website. The Wikipedia articles about Scientology were edited by members of the group to improve its portrayal. [216]

On August 25, 2010, the Toronto Star reported that the Canadian “government is now conducting two investigations into federal employees who have taken their public opinion on federal policies and bitter political debates.” [217]

In 2010, Al Jazeera ‘s Teymoor Nabili suggested that the article Cyrus Cylinder had been edited for political purposes by “an apparent tussle of opinions in the shadowy world of hard drives and’ independent ‘editors that included the Wikipedia industry.” The Iranian Presidential election, 2009 and the ensuing “anti-Iranian activities” a “strenuous attempt to portray the cylinder as nothing more than the propaganda tool of an aggressive invader” was visible. The edits following his analysis of the edicts during 2009 and 2010, represented a complete dismissal of the suggestion that the cylinder, or Cyrus’ actions, represent concern for human rights or any kind of enlightened intent, In stark contrast to Cyrus ‘ own reputation (among the people of Babylon) as written in the Old Testament . [218]

Arab-Israeli conflict

In April 2008, the Boston-based Committee for Accountability in Middle East Reporting in America ( CAMERA ) [219] Excerpts from some of the e-mails were published in the July 2008 issue of Harper’s Magazine under the title of “Candid Camera”. [220]

CAMERA argued the excerpts were unrepresentative and that it had explicitly campaigned merely “towards encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy”. [221] According to some defenders of CAMERA, serious misrepresentations of CAMERA’s role emanated from the competing Electronic Intifada group; Moreover, it is said, some other Palestinian advocacy groups have been guilty of systematic misrepresentations and manipulative behaviors but have not suffered bans of editors amongst their staff or volunteers. [222] [223]

Five editors in the campaign were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators. [224] Israeli diplomat David Saranga said that Wikipedia is looking at Israel. Palestinian People “terror” only once, he replied

“It should only be one thing: Israelis should be more active on Wikipedia.” Instead of blaming it, they should go on the site much more, and try and change it. ” [225]

Political commentator Haviv Rettig Gur, reviewing widespread perceptions in Israel of the systemic bias in Wikipedia articles, has argued that there are deeper structural problems creating the bias: anonymous editing favors biased results, especially if those “pro-Palestinian activists” organize concerted campaigns Arabic-Israeli issues, and current Wikipedia policies, while well-meant, have proven to be ineffective in handling this. [226]

On 3 August 2010, It was Reported que la Yesha Council together with Israel Sheli (My Israel), a network of online pro-Israel activists committed to spreading Zionism online, Were organizing people at a workshop in Jerusalem to teach ’em how to edit Wikipedia Articles in a pro-Israeli way. [227] [228] [229] Around 50 people took part in the race. [230]

The project organizer, Ayelet Shaked , who was elected to the Israeli parliament, was interviewed on Arutz Sheva Radio . Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules. She cited some examples as the use of the term “occupation” in Wikipedia entries, as well as in the editing of entries that link Israel with Judea and Samaria and Jewish history . ” [231]

“We do not want to change Wikipedia or turn it into a propaganda arm,” commented Naftali Bennett , director of the Yesha Council. “We just want to show the other side.” [232] “The idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to include our point of view,” he said in another interview. [230]

Zionist conspiracy to take over Wikipedia “; Rather, it is an attempt to balance information about disputed issues in the online encyclopedia.

[T] he goal of this workshop was to train a number of pro-Israelis how to edit Wikipedia so that more people could present the Israeli side of things, and thus the content would be more balanced … Wikipedia is meant to be a Fair and balanced source, and it is a way of having the spectrum contributing to the content. [233]

Following the race announcement, Abdul Nasser An-Najar, the head of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate . [232]

In 2011, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales stated in retrospect about the race organized by Israel Sheli, “we saw absolutely no impact from what effort whatsoever. [234]

Corporate public relations industry

In January, 2012, members of the public relations industry created the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) Facebook group with the stated goal of maintaining accurate articles about corporations. [235]

Editing for financial rewards

In an October 2012 Salon story, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales Stated That He Was Against The practice of paid editing of Wikipedia, as are a number of long-time members Wikipedia’s community. Wikipedia articles for writers and musicians for $ 30 an hour. According to Fiorio, her clients control the article’s content in the same way as they control press releases, which function as part of publicity strategies. [236] In January 2007, Rick Jelliffe in a story by CBS [237] and IDG News Service [238] [239] that Microsoft had offered him compensation in exchange for his future editorial services on OOXML . A Microsoft spokesperson, quoted by CBS, commented that “Microsoft and the writer, Rick Jelliffe, had not changed hands, but he had agreed that his writing before submission”. CBS also quoted Jimmy Wales as having expressed his disapproval of Microsoft’s involvement: “We were very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach.”

In a story covered by the BBC , Jeffrey Merkey, who was in exchange for a donation his Wikipedia entry was edited in his favor. Jay Walsh, a spokesman for Wikipedia, in the Interview with the Daily Telegraph . [240]

In a story covered by InformationWeek , Eric Goldman , an assistant law professor at Santa Clara University in California argued That “Eventually, marketers will build scripts to edit Wikipedia pages to insert links and conduct automated attacks is Wikipedia,” [241] THUS putting the encyclopedia In order to ensure that the countermeasures against the attackers, especially because of a vicious circle where the strain of responding to these attacks drives core contributors away, increasing the strain on those who remain. [242] However,

Conflicts involving Wikipedia policy makers

In February 2008, British technology news and opinion website The Register Stated That a prominent administrator of Wikipedia HAD edited a topic area Where He Had a conflict of interest to keep criticism to a bare minimum, as well as altering the Wikipedia policies Regarding personal biography and Conflict of interest to favor his editing.

Some of the most scathing criticism of Wikipedia’s claimed neutrality came in The Register , which in turn was allegedly criticized by the founding members of the project. According to The Register : [243]

In short, Wikipedia is a cult. Or at least, the inner circle is a cult. We are not the first to make this observation.

On the inside, they reinforce each other’s beliefs. And if anyone else has questions about those beliefs, they circle the wagons. They deny the facts. They attack the attacker. After our Jossi Fresco story, Fresco did not refute our reporting. He simply accused us of “yellow journalism”. After our Overstock.com article, Wales called us “trash”.

Charles Arthur in ” The Guardian said that” Wikipedia, and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult . ” [244]

In February 2015, a longstanding Wikipedia administrator was on-banned after Wikipedia’s arbitration committee found that he had, over a period of several years, manipulated the content of Wikipedia articles to add to the controversial Indian Institute of Planning and Management and its dean, Arindam Chaudhuri . An Indian journalist commented in Newsweek on the importance of the Wikipedia article to the institute’s PR campaign and voiced the opinion that “by letting this go on for so long, Wikipedia has messed up perhaps 15,000 students’ lives. [245] [246]

Scientific disputes

The 2005 Nature study aussi gave two brief examples of challenges That Wikipedian science writers purportedly faced is Wikipedia. The first Concerned the addition of a section is violence to the schizophrenia article qui EXHIBITED the view of one of the paper’s regular editors, neuropsychologist Vaughan Bell , That It was little more than a “rant” about the need to lock people up, and That editing it stimulated him to look up the literature on the topic. [4]

The second dispute reported by Nature involved the climatologist William Connolley related to protracted disputes between editors of climate change topics, in which Connolley was placed on parole and several opponents banned from editing climate related articles for six months; [4] a separate paper commented that this was more than etiquette than bias and that Connolley did “not suffer fools gladly “. [247]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *