mark@chiptape.com
The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
Use factually-reliable sources instead of Wikipedia.
In Wikipedia articles, click footnotes to verify sources.
Use Wikipedia to get an overview of controversial or complex topics.
Is the cited source factually-reliable?
Read the cited source.
Instead of quoting Wikipedia, quote its cited sources.
Editor anonymity:
Anyone can edit most articles.
Relatively obscure articles like the one on Mr. Seigenthaler — and among Wikipedia’s almost 1.5 million entries, there’s plenty of esoterica — are especially vulnerable to vandalism, says Mr. Halavais: “the high-traffic areas are going to be the cleanest.”
...from https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-wikipedia-ever-make-the-grade/
The story is just one example of circular editing — where a person puts false information on Wikipedia with no citation. A journalist then uses that information in an article, and a later Wikipedia editor uses the article as a citation for the original unsourced statement.
...Wikipedia complies these in a sprawling list of hoaxes on Wikipedia and a list of so-called citogenesis incidents.
But occasional instances of vandalism don’t discredit the entire site. Wikipedia does not advertise itself as a reliable source (you can read the “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” essay for more details). Every hour of every day, nefarious pranksters attempt to vandalize Wikipedia with false information. And every hour of every day, dedicated volunteers remove the clutter.
...from https://www.inverse.com/input/culture/wikipedia-hoax-alan-macmasters-toaster
It is quite as conceivable that an early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices.
This editing model is highly concentrated, as 77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors, a majority of whom have chosen to remain anonymous.
...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
In other words, in some cases, entries are not community entries but rather a reflection of the biases of the top Wikipedians (editors). Some have referred to this as a cabal; however, Wikipedia denies that a cabal exists.
I have found Wikipedia invaluable for controversial topics.
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Overall, we rate Wikipedia Least Biased based on a wide variety of content that often covers pros and cons, right and left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to possible inaccurate or incomplete entries, as stated by Wikipedia themselves, that may reflect the personal biases of the top editors and a complete lack of transparency regarding the qualifications and who the editors are.
...It is nearly impossible to analyze when it comes to bias, as each entry changes frequently and is edited by people with different opinions. In general, most Wikipedia entries cover both positives and negatives and link to mostly credible sources of information to support their claims. Since bias varies from entry to entry and line to line, we rate them least biased as many perspectives are found on Wikipedia; however, each entry may convey the bias of the top editors.
Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.
...Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We do not ask for their blind trust.
...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth
And the authors found that “Wikipedia articles which have received more revisions tend to be more neutral.” The more the crowd works on an article, the less biased it is.
...from https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd
Well-known sources are more likely to be fact checked than obscure sources.
Wikipedia often comes up first when googling.
I use conservative websites for Bible study, not for news. Biased sources may misinterpret statistics. First figure out what happened, then determine the moral implications. You can't make moral decisions if you aren't statistically-informed.
Wikipedia often rejects a literal interpretation of the Bible, but can be useful for looking up different interpretations of Bible passages.
Conservatives aren't always right.
Liberals aren't always wrong.
With a secular audience, Wikipedia carries more weight than conservative sites.
While you read this page, Wikimedia projects develop at an average rate of over 18 edits every second performed by editors from all over the world, while receiving almost 10,000 page views every second.
It sounds good.
It sounds like Data from Star Trek: TNG.
It is concise while also touching on relevant related information on a subject.
It provides both an overview and a deep dive into subjects.
Click as much as you want!
mark@chiptape.com