Long-Term Wikipedia Vandalism Exposed 313
Daveydweeb writes, "The accuracy of Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, came into question again when a long-standing article on 'NPA personality theory' was confirmed to be a hoax. Not only had the article survived at Wikipedia for the better part of a year, but it had even been listed as a 'Good Article,' supposedly placing it in the top 0.2-0.3% of all Wikipedia articles — despite being almost entirely written by the creator of the theory himself."
This is why you need multiple sources (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times... (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that a certain percentage of articles undermines the whole encyclopedia is likening everybody to criminals just because some of us are.
I just can't believe people are still beating this drum - when will individual cases like this stop making /. news?
Not a Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Proof the system works (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you can create a false article. It's not like scientists have never falsified their research and published it in a journal, for example.
The proof is whether they're caught and the mistakes are corrected. In an obscure subject this may take a while in ANY format.
People need to learn to apply good research skills across the board, not just to wikis.
Considering the source is one of these.
Irregardless is not a fucking word (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia should NEVER be cited (Score:5, Insightful)
I've written several articles on Wikipedia on obscure things (Phosphatidylmyo-inositol_mannosides [wikipedia.org]) which was just an exercise in me understanding my own research, but the stuff I've written, even if heavily sourced on Wikipedia is so obscure I could just make up anything about that and it would likely fly. And the truth is, if I write anything that seems correct, for the most part it will last because it seems correct And therein lies the problem that an unmoderated system cannot solve for. Wikipedia assumes honorable and intelligent users and gives enormous privileges to these users, when just one bad apple can go around slowly obscuring fact with fiction.
Anyway, I've ranted here which is not what I really wanted, but my point is simple: Wikipedia is a good starting point, but should never ever be used as a cited source. Find the information you discover in Wikipedia in another source and use that. And, because you should be a good wikipedia user, put that source into the article.
Misleading Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that the true nature of the article is far, far more boring than what the summary leads you to believe.
Re:Really? Unconfirmed info on wikipedia?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you ever cite any sort of encyclopedia in your work, any decent teacher should give you a big fat 0. Only valid use of an encyclopedia is checking an entry for something you're unfamiliar with, to learn a general overview and get leads about what you should research.
Re:Proof the system works (not) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? Unconfirmed info on wikipedia?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was under the impression that one of the good things about Wikipedia was that you could always see versions from old edits, but this seems not to be the case. I would much rather see a procedure where 'non-notable' pages are replaced with a page stating that they have been deleted, but the revision history retained. Then, if enough people look at version n-1 it should be automatically re-instated. The real test of whether a page is interesting is not whether half a dozen wikipedians think it is, but whether people actually look at it.
Re:Commercial fork of wikipedia? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, the encyclopaedia in this scenario couldn't be Wikipedia, as Wikipedia policy prohibits the kind of article I describe
Good point, but I think you've answered yourself here - yes, it would be fine I think to cite an article that's been written by one of the world's foremost experts, whether that article appears in an encyclopedia or elsewhere, but the reason one cannot cite Wikipedia is nothing to do with reliability, but because they do not allow such original research.
When it comes to encyclopedia articles that are comparable to what Wikipedia has (i.e., editors collecting from existing sources), then I'd disagree that the encyclopedias should be cited directly in either case.