Counting on Wki for the right answers?

Counting on Wikipedia for the right answers?

April 20 2012 at 03:30pm
By Amy Oliver
.
The number of factual errors shows just how unreliable it can be to use the online resource as a sole means of digging up information.


London - Up to six in 10 articles on Wikipedia contain inaccuracies, according to new research.

The number of factual errors shows just how unreliable it can be to use the online resource as a sole means of digging up information.
Yet millions base everything from school homework to corporate presentations using facts and figures they’ve gleaned from the site.

A study into, specifically, company information on the website discovered 60 percent of articles had factual errors.

But the site’s administrators themselves add to the problem by being too slow to react to those who complain about the errors, it said.
The research was conducted by the scholarly Public Relations Journal which quizzed 1 284 members about their clients’ Wikipedia entries.

One in four of those questioned had not previously checked what Wikipedia said about their clients, lead researcher Professor Marcia DiStaso of Penn State University, said.

Once a mistake had been spotted, getting it sorted posed further difficulties – one in four complaints to Wikipedia never received any type of response.

Others said it took “weeks” to get an answer although Wikipedia itself claims all requests for corrections are dealt with between two and five days.

DiStaso said: “It does not surprise me that so many Wikipedia entries contain factual errors. What is surprising, however, is that 25 percent of survey respondents indicated they are not familiar with the Wikipedia articles for their company or clients.

“At some point most, if not all, companies will determine they need to change something in their Wikipedia entries.”
Although Wikipedia is not an official record of fact for a company, it could be vital to get it right for those who use it to gather information about a corporation.

DiStaso added: “The status quo can’t continue. A high amount of factual errors doesn’t work for anyone, especially the public, which relies on Wikipedia for accurate, balanced information.” – Daily Mail


WOW!!!
 
Wikipeadia not accurate and full of errors? Shock horror, what a surprise! :eek:
I would never recommend on relying on Wiki for accurate information. There are a few good articles out there, but often they get edited to destruction. There are unhelpful people who like to revert corrections.
Also Wiki's verifyability policy can be a pain; let me give you an example:

There is a page on what firearms the British police use. Now any British person knows that most British police forces use the MP5 carbine, but because no police, or official website says so, all reference to the MP5 dissapeared, despite the fact that anyone from the UK could say that they had actually seen MP5s in the hands of the police. Also I asked a friend of mine who is a firearms officer what weapons her force uses and updated the page to reflect that.
Now as far as wiki is concerned information from an actual police officer doesn't count. :rolleyes:
 
well, not overly shocking, but it is an easy source to use. Google returns a minium of 200 zillion pages and none really "spot-on". I think it is lazy of us to take too mcuh of it as gospel

Ivan
 
I though I saw my name on a thread ... Well, simple misunderstanding :cool:

Anyway. I think wiki is like your children encyclopedia, gives you a basic idea about a general knowledge, not necessary correct and complete, but a start. It's about concepts what generally believed so (but even urban legend can have may believers). Use it as a front door lobby, not the towers of knowledge you want to live in.
 

Hoist40

Banned
So we are going to base our opinion on Wikipedia from information coming from “Public Relations Journal which quizzed 1284 members about their clients’ Wikipedia entries”?

Isn’t it the job of public relations professionals to manipulate information to improve the public opinion of their clients? And since public relations professionals don’t have lots of influence with Wikipedia they might be prejudicial against it.
 
The bit I don't get is why didn't one of those companies just ask one of their employees to log on from their home computer to make the changes ? Come on, as if no one would do that from a business point of view if it affected your bottom line.

In any cases, Wikipedia to me is just something I check for quick facts on things that are non-controversial and usualy non-life threatening like "who-played-whom" and that sort of things.
 

Devvy

Donor
Shock horror.

The huge breadth of knowledge in Wikipedia makes up for the inaccuracies. I'm pretty sure if you somehow calculated the proportion of errors to the amount of knowledge in Wikipedia, it would appear equal or better to other encylopeadias.

Wikipedia is a great starting place for research, contains a lot of good information, but it definitely shouldn't be last place you use to read up on stuff.
 
I did a NaNoWriMo novel last year ("Vikings Sack San Marino - The Trouble With Typos" - Google if you're interested) and used Wikipedia to further the plot with a typo. (Actually, the Wiki article gets it right - "Most Serene Republic of San Marino" - but the blogger who was spell checking sereve figured it had to be wrong":D). It is great fodder for comedy at times.

However, part of the problem comes from their basic policy.

There is a page on what firearms the British police use. Now any British person knows that most British police forces use the MP5 carbine, but because no police, or official website says so, all reference to the MP5 dissapeared, despite the fact that anyone from the UK could say that they had actually seen MP5s in the hands of the police. Also I asked a friend of mine who is a firearms officer what weapons her force uses and updated the page to reflect that.
Now as far as wiki is concerned information from an actual police officer doesn't count. :rolleyes:

This is all well and good for a scientist who just discovered something. Medical and scientific studies should be checked and double checked.

However, there is a vast difference between someone uploading their own bio or information on their own discovery and two independent British police officers posting, "Hey, we use MP5s." Given today's technology, it should be easy for an editor to get confirmation somehow that these two people are British officers (I can see why they'd want 2 independent people) and that they have been on the force long enough to have knowledge in their field.

As stated, I think it's fine as a childrens' encyclopedia type, as noted. And, with little else to go on, I think it can be used in moderstation in timelines, too, if a person doesn't have access to a lot of resources or time. But, it's certainly going to have some inaccuracies.

Though at least it never told someone to arrest a Lexus thinking it was Alexis like in my book.:D
 
On the MP5s issue there are plenty photographs on the net of firearms officers carrying them. A quick Google images search brings up a great many results, including this one. ;)

armedpolice460.jpg


The reference to the MP5 has now been put back in because the Met now mentions it on their website. However one of the provincial police forces recently updated their website, which meant that information on the pistol they use dissapeared and was thus removed from the wiki entry. One thing that hasn't reapeared is mention of the G36 rifle family, now I can say from my own observations from last time I was in London that the MPS uses the G36C. Though I'd have thought that this Daily Mail article might sufice for verifyability purposes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250213/Meet-Emily-4ft-10ins-policewoman-rifle-big-is.html, the photos showing two officers with G36Cs (btw officers of the height of the female officer are called laptops in the police because they are a small PC :D).

I only really bring this up because it is one of the quirks of wiki that in many cases something which is true can't be stated because it isn't possible to verify it with a reference.
 
Last edited:
Top