Ready to Participate?
Ready to Participate?
Get Started!
Log In

This isn't meant to be a provocative question, just trying to get an explanation......
If Wiki is regarded as not always correct, why don't people who spot mistakes put them right?

Have you any examples of mistakes or misleading information?

Would you consider correcting something?
asked in wiki, information, corrections

warriorprincessxena1 answers:

If I noticed a mistake I would correct it but most of the times taht I use wiki it is because I am unsure of the facts so probably wouldnt be aware if they were wrong.
I have been trying to use it less since TSG raised the issue months ago but occasionally wiki is the source I use because other sites are not as easy..
So far I havent noticed a mistake but would definately correct it if I did, but I think that maybe where wikis problems lie-too many cooks in the kitchen re everybody can edit the info..some times a good thing but other times not

/ reply

w.j.flywheel answers:

It's Sunday, let's have a Wiki Witchunt...

I know it's not you but Wiki has paid the price for being popular and as such the snobs will just line up to knock it down. Yes, sure it has mistakes in it but so does everything.

If anyone happens to see a bloke called Joe MaCarthy on their way out, could they please send him in here, only we need him right now....

/ reply

rainchild answers:

I've actually never noticed misinformation on Wiki. I love it, my brother and I use it to solve all our little trivia squabbles. Wiki has the final say with us.

/ reply

SidtheSloth answers:

i have used wiki lots of times and didnt know it si not a good source cos it had always been right with the stuff i needed

/ reply

blacksmith81 answers:

I generally regard information from commercial sources, to be the most suspect. Especially where the company is actively involved in promoting a given product, after all they have a vested interest in fostering the notion, that Product X will defecate miracles.

/ reply

rasputin1309 answers:

Wikipedia has no editorial rigour apart from the community using it - there is no "verification" of its "facts" - that is why it is regarded with mistrust. It is the case that most of the time, the public tend to be pretty good at checking these and you tend to get fanatics adding info about things they know about. Due to this nature it also tends to give undue attention to irrelevancies at the expense of perhaps issues with more gravitas - for example the page on Jade Goody appears to have more information than that of Florence Nightingale and certainly more than that of Emmeline Pankhurst. Within no editorial verification wikipedia should always be treated with caution - however, in tests, its accuracy has been shown to be close to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica on most subjects - but it remains the case that there are no qualifications needed to produce a page which will then be taken as "fact" by most people who read it.

Supplement from 08/12/2007 01:10pm:

/ reply

athenabs13ohe answers:

Thanks Raspy,
i answered a question re where i used to live ect. and it got my curosity going, so i looked at Wikk-liar, and found where i used to live before homes were knocked down, a complete fabrication, they just said, nothing there in that area at all. Which in fact was factually incorrect, i was not happy to say the least, so i did further research on Wikki, re riots, yet again factually incorrect, as my home at the time was in the middle of those riots and what was said about what sparked the riots off, were yes you guessed it Wrong.!! So who ever put these "So Called Facts" in should double check 1st. why i wont use it if i can possibly can.

/ reply

Paul_Rook answers:

Yeah i have noticed a few answers and have always corrected it, personally i dont mind and when i answer questions i try to stay away from Wikki, its very rare i use it. for example i used it last night answering Tarapalmers question about uncle sam, as it was the only site i could find that answered her question and when i posted it i found a better site and supplimented my answer and some of the new answer did contridict the wikki one. My advice is to try and not use wikki.

/ reply

moonzero2 answers:

One of the problems of community editorial is the ones that think it funny to put misleading or inflamatory material on a page. This is why some pages are restricted to those accredited to edit them.

I suppose it would be the literary equivalent of those morons who thought it funny to put bleach or urinate in the water bowsers during the floods.

Supplement from 08/12/2007 07:47pm:

Sorry missed a bit, if I knew something to be wrong and was sure of my facts then yes I would correct an article.

/ reply

Arellia answers:

I share your sentiments too imfeduptoo, I've heard lots of people here and on the outside world complain about the mistakes that they found on wiki but very few of them seem to have corrected it. Apart from those hotly debated or vandalized pages wiki does require you to log in to correct something either.
I do correct things if I see something wrong or add a official reference site so that someone can get more information and feel more reassured of the information. I would hope that even if people don't like to use wiki because of they feel its inaccurate they could still correct it and make it better?
Perhaps the reason people don't correct it is if they feel fed up with the inaccuracies they see they don't feel the need to change it or be associated with it.

/ reply


No Comments