There are many reasons why Wikipedia represents a flawed model for publishing accurate information. These 10 reasons critique Wikipedia and will hopefully provide some impetus for improvement.
- The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense.
- Wikipedia has no way of recognizing expert knowledge over inexpert knowledge. The members with most authority are the ones who have spent the most time working on Wikipedia – their “knowledge” is often just a combination of Google results and prejudice.
- Wikipedia gives people’s opinions undeserved authority by virtue of its search engine rankings and authoritative presentation and identity.
- Too many people (especially students) who use Wikipedia believe the articles will be reliable – and Wikipedia’s stance as an encyclopedia encourages this misguided belief.
- At the core of Wikipedia is the idea that bad articles will eventually be edited by the community until they become good (i.e. factual and well-written). In fact, they are likely to be edited until all but one member loses interest or gives up trying.
- “If you don’t like an entry, you can fix it yourself”(1). But I came here for information, not to provide it.
- “Wikipedia pages have become increasingly complex and Wikipedia doesn’t support a WYSIWYG editor.”(3) This and other technical aspects of Wikipedia effectively prevent many people with valuable knowledge from participating.
- The lack of any required standard of writing, error-checking and fact-checking means that many Wikipedia entries are poorly-written and contain factual inconsistencies.(1)(2)(4)
- Wikipedia articles only ever skim the surface. Which is fine – but they don’t ever indicate what might be below the surface either, leading people to believe that everything is as simple and uncontroversial as Wikipedia says it is. (2)
- Wikipedia entries are meant to be “notable” – but only Wikipedia’s (self-appointed) editors have to think so. Is Stroyent really important?
Publish this article on your blog with a followed link to http://www.smoblogger.com/.
References
1. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/page2.html
2. http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
3.http://www.calacanis.com/2007/02/20/technological-obscurification…
4.http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php
More SMO Blog Posts Like This
Tags: Communities, Knowledge, nofollow, Online Encyclopedia, Quest for Truth, SMO, Truth, Wiki, Wikipedia, Wikipedia Community, Wikipedia Editors, Wikipedia Sucks
My favorite is the Canadian editor who got upset with me over adding unsourced (but true) material to short articles that were mostly composed of unsourced material (which he decided to leave in). And this person, living in Canada, has no expertise or knowledge of the subject area where I making contributions. This jerk threatened to have me banned for vandalism, then denied he accused me of vandalism.
Wikipedia is just one long pissing contest among people’s different biases and hangups.
Completely agree. The power trips, bias, and inaccuracies are truly astounding. If it wasn’t so successful at massaging people’s egos by allowing them to feel important for contributing to a website, it probably would never have become as large as it is today. Given the sheer amount of profit Wikipedia generates, there is no motivation to clean it up and make it what it was intended to be – a good source of accurate information.
Wikipedia profits? LOL, just being facetious I assume.
11. Wikipedia is killing small dedicated websites, by stealing their information and stoling their place in the search engines…
You suck, Wikipedia RULES!
Looks like the Jimmy Wales fan club has arrived. You won’t find any donations here.
I think wikipedia started out great; when I used the content was reliable and accurate however ironically as the site became more popular the site’s content became worst. It serves as a great conduit for information but it’s 100 percent open design is it’s biggest weakness and today as we see wikipedia is useless. The sad thing is that millions of people believe otherwise and it’s only another influence(although I place the blame mostly on them) that is making my generation even dumber.
These are excellent points. I have found Wikipedia little more than a repository of rumour and misinformation, though some of the scientific pages tend to be more accurate.
I agree with John: in the early days, Wikipedia started off great, but, it was only known to a small group of idealists. Bit like email. Email once was great, too, before it was ruined by spammers. Twitter was great before the bots got in.
I had a similar experience to DC, but, interestingly, not on Wikipedia itself. I blogged about Wikipedia and posted a link about a senior editor. Next thing was that editor sending me email abuse. She couldn’t see that I had nothing to do with that link. Then she began citing the law at me. Next time, lady, try doing that to someone who doesn’t have a law degree.
If someone like that is a senior editor, then what are the rest of them like?
Well, another experience suggests that many are out to do good but rely far too much on search engines to determine whether an addition or a subject is ‘notable’. Offline resources, forget it. And that’s yet another weakness there on Wikipedia: the fact that mere search engine results can legitimize content—regardless of those results’ own legitimacy.
DC, you are right: the site is basically a pissing match, and the editor who contacted me proved it. It was clear from that experience that you don’t need brains to get up there—it’s clear that you can scam the system or be obsessive enough and get up to the top. Which seemed to confirm the link that I posted.
So true. Whenever I hear my fellow college students complain that Wikipedia should be allowed, I like to say that “Wikipedia is for general knowledge only”. I only go there when I want to see if a celeb is alive or dead, when it happened or if a tv show is on air or when it went off air.
Even Youtube is slightly more reliable (and even then I use that lightly since you can edit videos).
Wikipedia editors seem to have a chip on their shoulder. I’ve had numerous pages taken down due to the fact that they look like advertising. Where do they draw the line? It’s a bit absurd. F Wiki.
I believe the fundamental problem about Wikipedia is the concept itself, i .e. trying to build an alphabetically organized encyclopedia by means of haphazard contributions and equally haphazard revisions without any serious and reliable quality control both with respect to language as well as with respect to contents.
Certainly there is a lot of information there, which is presumnably ok, but the problem is, that you can never be absolutely sure, what is correct and what isn’t, so if you cite anything from wikipedia you run the risk of spreading false “facts” like rings in the water, and in that case, there is nobody to blame, because no one is really responsible, as anybody can write, what they like and even maliciously place bits and pieces of misguiding information here and there, what may in fact never be discovered.
I have myself had the following thoughts: How about instead creating an alternative system based on the mind-mapping model, i .e. a multidimensional knowledge system, where you as a contributor can expand the total sum of knowledge by going in depth into infinitely many levels of expertise within the subject range, where you have expertise.
If you think that sounds interesting, please send me an email, and I will explain the idea in further detail.
I also have an idea about, how a fairly good quality control might work, without the necessity of some strict, laborious and bureaucratic censorship procedures. Basically the idea is to allow alternative explanations, and then let the users decide, which versions they prefer and show this by rating the entries (and leave comments about possible improvements).
S0ren, how can anyone email you? You have no contact information on that website at all. Plus, if you need some quality hosting then please respond by adding your email to the next post you make and I will contact you. That hosting you are using now is terrible and your site is very slow because of it. I like your ideas, so please leave an email or a way to get in touch with you to discuss your ideas.
Thanks
11. Wikipedia is controlled by the corporations and governments who can afford to hire the most editors.
I find a lot more ignorance and off hand (unsourced?) comments on blogs and elsewhere than on Wikipedia. At least on Wikipedia, with all its flaws, inaccuracies *can* be corrected. Sources *can* be requested or else the material can be deleted. On blogs, there is no such check – any idiot can write a post without having a clue about the topic and make it sound authoritative.
Also I think many of the comments above come from disgruntled users who tried to create an article about their boring company or product to eventually have it deleted. On one hand, they complain that Wikipedia is biased; on the other hand, they also complain when Wikipedia delete their biased information. Pick one!
Just because something is sourced doesn’t mean it gets to the truth. Wikipedia editors have their own agendas and biases and they will tend to include sources that validate their point of view. They will leave out sources as well, sometimes the best ones, in my biased opinion.
Blog comment streams are conversations that are open to correction by the public. Could this dialogue occur on Wikipedia on a page that’s ranked in Google that someone might actually find and read?
Laurent, bloggers are allowed to be stupid and ignorant; they’re not passing themselves off as scholarly, undisputed sources of information– Wikipedia is.
That’s why I’m personally more tolerant of the “idiot bloggers” than “idiot Wikipedia contributors” and “editors”. If a blogger writes that the American Civil War started in 1868, so what? No one’s turning to blogs, anyway, for their information. It’s a different story if Wikipedia writes that.
BTW, the argument that *anything* can be corrected in Wikipedia is one of the weakest defenses I have ever heard, because it doesn’t take into account the fact that by the time the error is corrected, hundreds if not thousands of web sites will have passed on that error without giving a second thought about looking back at the corrected Wiki entry. So yes, Wiki’s “entries” get corrected, but not the countless sites that sourced it.
Nowhere was this more evident than when I came across the “any idiot blogger” you were talking about. An “idiot blogger” wrote an entry stating that the 1964 NYC World’s Fair ended in 1970– which defies common sense since it’s the… wait, for it… *1964* World’s Fair and not the 1970 World’s Fair.
Dozens of commenters had to correct her about the error, because guess what– she had gotten the error from Wikipedia, used it in her post, and never thought to check back the original entry for an update. So were it not for those commenters, her error–straight from Wikipedia itself– would still be there. Because after all, who’s going to recheck an encyclopedia for “errors”? It’s supposed to be right the first time, no?
So much for that lame “it’ll be corrected eventually” defense!
wikipedia represents (for the most part) elite interests by spreading dogma under the cloak of “neutrality.” Peer review is just a filter to eliminate dissenting views, no matter how accurate and factual, that are not in line with free market capital accumulation and commoditized science. Many contributers are from State entities like CDC, NIH, FDA and medical journals that represent the big pharma and medical technology industries. But they get a lot of help from armchhair egoists who believe the crap they are fed in school and by the media. I have read subjects that were completely flawed and written by self interested parties and the only requests posted for revision or elimination are esoteric, insignificant and petty and almost snobbish.
There’s a better design for a free online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. First, it would have a database of articles edited by professional editors and researchers. In addition, there would be a holding section which contains articles emailed in from amateur contributors. These are still readable to the general public but will be marked as unchecked. On a regular basis, the site’s team of editors and researchers will take an article from the holding section, clean it up and check its facts, maybe even requesting sources from the originator by email, and then transfer the finished product to the main body. There must be no pretense of “neutrality” either. Every contribution should be accepted, but of course cleaned up, regardless of how “notable” or not it is.
I use wikipedia for information on fictional things (TV series, movies, etc). Anything even slightly controversial- forget it. Most read like propaganda leaflets handed out by activists.
wikipedia is a mmorpg. the only way to ‘beat’ it when you have ‘copy editors’ nipping at your heals is to beat them at their own game. use their ridiculous vocabulary and rules against them.
i too only use wikipedia for information on tv shows or movies.
one thing i dont like is that with a LOT of tv shows or movies, they allow editors to type in the entire plot. that’s acceptable to them. it seems like a huge spoiler for me and i think it may detract from some people seeing the movies or television shows
In the last 2 days I’ve looked up 8 things on wikipedia and 7 of them had completely incorrect information within the pages.
Regarding “plot summaries” the person responsible typed in a description of the movie that was prosetry and completely incorrect.
Also, looking up a few factoids, I noticed that the references that were pointed to were other sources that **USE WIKIPEDIA AS THE SOURCE**. This makes absolutely no sense, and is detailed in this comic:
The citation method is ridiculous, and this “collective truth” bickerfest is even worse. All it takes is one editor with self-proclaimed authority or obsession with a page and that page will never change from what their vision is.
And the “free business model” is driving out any other reputable, singularly edited source from being sustainable.
Wikipedia should really evolve into being a source for officiated wikis, where various areas of knowledge are moderated by knowledgable experts.
While I understand the value of demonetizing and decentralizing the knowledge base, I’d prefer it to be monetized and centralized over allowing tin crown wearing zealot editors to monopolize the content via relentless obsession.
Number 9 is what really really sucks about Wikipedia. You really said it.
I’ve been looking at Wikipedia (and editing certain sections occasionally) for years.
This website, despite not being updated since mid-2006, does a good job demonstrating various issues Wikipedia faces: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm
One big issue which discourages people with an actual, sustained interest in a subject (actually acquiring many books, articles, etc. if they themselves aren’t actual academics) from editing to make articles fundamentally better is that your edits could be reverted by someone who knows very little about the subject and who is reliant on Google for answers and sources.
The problem comes when that person insists he or she is totally right about a subject.
Now in the best of cases you’d need to endure some days (or weeks) of bureaucracy. If all is well and the stars align then you use all the sources at your disposal to demonstrate the correctness of your edits. If, however, the bowels of hell break loose then said googlemeister proceeds to move the heavens and the earth; he or she calls up friends, delays the reintroduction of your edits into the article, and introduces you into needless e-politics lasting for months. You might probably win so long as you keep your cool and continue beating opposing arguments to death with credible (preferably academic) sources not gleaned from a Google search, but by then you will have probably regretted involving yourself in Wikipedia anyway.
Then some other googlemeister comes along and reverts your edits weeks or months later. It looks as if the battle is to begin anew.
Then you stop.
And these aren’t even “big” articles, like Hitler or Stalin or the USA or China or something. Pretty much any article could have a googlemeister appear and edit in lameness or revert information you know to be verifiable.
Two quotes from the aforementioned link sum things up quite nicely in this regard:
“I do sometimes contribute to Wikipedia, but my first rule in such matters is never tackle a subject in Wikipedia that I can do better on my own web site. After all, why should I knock myself out writing a brilliantly crafted article that some flat-earther will butcher two hours later? No, I limit my participation to tweaking topics like shipwrecks and Egyptology, things I have a passing, limited interest in, but not subjects I’m willing to sign my name to.”
On a particularly controversial article: “Obviously, the article will never, ever be allowed to rest in peace. Whatever you write, no matter how accurate or fluent, will be changed by the end of the week. The best solution would be to get a couple of knowledgeable historians (or at least history majors) to write it from scratch, and then lock it against further edits. Unfortunately that’s what a real encyclopedia would do, and it would admit the failure of the whole Wikipedia concept.”
I Googled “Wikipedia sucks” and this page was one of the immediate results.
Deservingly so. Great Top 10 list, and all of it totally true.
The self-appointed smug attitude of the regular “Wikipedians” on that site is laughably awful. I’m blown away at how often perfectly good info can be reverted by one guy, who obviously spends all his time on only certain pages he thinks he holds all the knowledge about, simply because he didn’t think of the other guy’s edit first.
They also hold a bias against anyone “unregistered”, who just edits from an IP and not some Xbox gamertag-like “user name”, like an elitist douche at a night club or something.
Likewise, I’ve seen total nonsense and wrong info survive on the site, by the bias of a Wikipedian, or sly troll skills of someone who simply worded things or faked citation well enough to impress the idiots there.
Wikipedians are an example of genuine human pettiness. They literally think they *own* knowledge.
You could offer good sources and they’ll still try and fight you on it, then in the end, bust out some trivial rule book to peg you with once things have escalated (like you’ve reverted 3 times, it’s no good, etc); nonsense policies that don’t protect anything but their own pride.
Guys who really have no other way to contribute to life, let alone the internet, appoint themselves as monitors of a website called Wikipedia. It’s painfully clear.
I wish Wikipedia would be proven fallible and invalidated once and for all because it’s completely overrated and ridiculous. Stop using it! You want info, there’s plenty of press sites and first-party places to get it.
And I would also add that there are some quite interesting opinions that have been left here by visitors. Thanks to all.