The Problem With Wikipedia

[Dingfod]

http://www.irintech.com/x1/blogarchive.php?id=962

Ain't it the truth?

[viscousmemories]

Damn, I was all ready to get into a serious discussion about all the things wrong with Wikipedia. Thank god for comics. :phew:

[Shelli]

Damn, I was all ready to get into a serious discussion about all the things wrong with Wikipedia.Feel free then. I don't know that much about it, and from the bits and pieces that I hear, I'm curious. :eh?:

[viscousmemories]

In all honesty I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, I just think it's a dangerously unreliable source for research - especially on controversial issues.

As just one tiny example, I recently went there to look up the Advance Directives Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Directives_Act) (commonly known as the "Futile Care Law") and found a reference to the Emilio Gonzales case that made some questionable assertions. Specifically, the article said:

Doctors had diagnosed the toddler with Leigh's disease based on symptoms alone. Hospital administrators did not wait for results of tests that might confirm (but not conclusively prove) the suspected diagnosis before deciding to discontinue treatment.

...which sounds to me a lot like an accusation of gross negligence on the part of the doctors. So I did what I understand good Wikipedians are supposed to do in cases such as this, and put {{fact}} after each of the two sentences - which results in them being marked with (citation needed) - a not-so-subtle way of challenging the veracity of a claim.

Well I'm not a serious Wikipedia editor or anything, so that was one of only a couple changes I've ever made - and I made the change without logging in or anything; literally anyone can edit Wiki entries. Just out of curiosity I went back to that page a couple weeks later, and where I had put (citation needed) was replaced with citations. "Wow", I thought. "The doctors really did that?" Well, I don't know. Unfortunately the 'citation' that had been added was a link to a blathering pro-life editorial that had nothing at all to do with that particular question of fact. So I just deleted both of those sentences, and that's how it remains today.

Anyway, the fact that this kind of thing is apparently common enough that I could run across it in the once-in-a-blue-moon editing jaunts I do indicates to me that there are probably a brazillion other questionable articles with bogus factual support to be found there.

[Shelli]

Doesn't sound too reliable to me. Thanks, vm.

[fragment]

Thanks for the comic, ding. I know whereof they draw.

vm, I agree completely on wiki's reliability - it's only as reliable as the people who edit it. I tend to use it as a useful stopping place to get a brief overview of a topic. If I'm particularly interested I'll check the citations, look for other sources, etc, and would recommend anyone else do so. Also, checking the talk pages and previous versions can be a good way to get a peek at controversies and inaccuracies.

[Kyuss Apollo]

Quite! The "history" and "talk" pages can be rather enlightening. Even for topics one might initially consider mundane--they often have been controversial to someone somewhere, just click on the talk and see. I have also gotten into a couple of "editing wars" with over-zealous and/or ignorant types. I generally try to stay out of that nowadays, haven't got the physical time or mental energy for online pissing contests, so all I do now is the fixing of minor typographical errors and similar ilk.

Still, wikipedia's the first place I go when beginning an investigation into something I know little about. And the comic you linked to Dingfod--that's happened to me more than once. :yup:

[Crumb]

I can't see the comic. :(

MySQL server has gone away