Patters

Can anyone besides the unfriendly and rude QuiGon post something other than that one error that was widely reported and led to Wikipedia tightening its processes. I provided two links to reliable sources that showed that Wikipedia is quite reliable. It doesn't mean it's perfect, but no book is.

Harry Boy

I posted an example as to why it is unreliable, "Liberals Like It"

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

maverick4

Wait a second. So the creator of conservapedia thinks the truth, as submitted and accepted by the populace, is liberal?

Pujo

Lol, that reminds me of the scene in Holy Grail when King Arthur is being insulted by the French guy in the castle and finally asks, "Is there someone else I can talk to?"

Seriously, Patters, Wikipedia is so full of errors you just need to read 2 or 3 articles to spot them. They usually get corrected quickly, but new ones appear in their place. I could give you 50 entries from my edit list of errors I've corrected, but I don't want people to know my Wikipedia login so you'll need to take my word for it. Wikipedia hasn't "tightened up" their process in any sense, either, it's exactly the same as it always was - anyone can make edits, and anyone can correct those edits.

Pujo

Lol, Stepehen Colbert says he doesn't like reality because it has a decidedly liberal spin.

QuiGon

Could you please give a source or reference for that statement...? I would be very interested in reading the study directly and getting a little bit more in depth beyond "there was a comparative study about a year ago".

Patters

I don't know, Pujo, maybe in certain subjects it's weaker than in others. But, when it comes to history and literature, I think it's overall quite accurate. Then, as one studied showed, it's apparently quite accurate in the sciences as well. At least in a comparison with Brittanica, it does respectably. If you don't mind, give a couple of actual examples of the kinds of errors you've found. I'd be honestly quite curious.

Patters

In post 4, I provided a link to an article on that subject, as well as another relevant link.

QuiGon

See, this is why I ask for references. There a very important little fact you and PatsFaninVA left out... he said "...comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Brittanica. Evidently, their accuracy was rated about the same."

But, upon checking the article, that's not the entire truth. The report doesn't say Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica... it says Wikipedia is as accurate in science as Britannica. As I have gladly admitted, Wikipedia is a great source for completely non-controversial information. So Wikipedia is great for non controversial stuff like the atomic weight of helium or Newton's 3 Laws or Franklin Pierce's birthday. But the instant you get into something even remotely controversial, like global warming or the Theory of Evolution or the righteousness of nuking Japan or the War in Iraq then Wikipedia is no better a reference tool than any thread from this forum where everyone is spouting off their opinions.

Pujo

You're right, certain subjects are better than others. They have pretty good CompSci and some good physics info. Next time I run into some gross errors, I'll give you a link. The types of errors I'm talking about range from incorrect statistics to outright mistruths, but the biggest thing I see is original research. People making connections between things based on their own experiences, instead of sources. Again, next time I run into examples, I will show them to you instead of editing them out.