Does Wikipedia give false information?

Answer 1

I would think most American’s would think the following line to be accurate:

1. “George Washington was the first President.”

If you saw that in wikipedia, it would seem to be a valid statement, and you might accept it as fact. It is true, isn’t it?

Well, no, it really isn’t true, and someone editing a wikipedia document might find a subtle error, and correct it.

You see, the line says that George Washington was the first President, not that:

2.“George Washington was the first President of the US.”

That second line is more accurate.

The problem is with the word “President.” A company, a trust, an organization, a society, a Masonic lodge, or any other organization might have a President. George Washington wasn’t the first person ever to be endowed with the title “President.”

If line one were posted in wikipedia, someone might edit it to read like line two.

But line 2 isn’t accurate either.

Someone might realize there is no country on earth that has the name “US.” The name of the Country of which George Washington served as the President is, “The United States of America.” That is more accurate still.

So, the line should read:

3.“George Washington served as the first President of the United States of America.”

Are you happy with that? Oops.

Someone might come along and say, “but wait, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), until the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America (March 4, 1789), there were other Presidents who served under the “Articles of Confederation.” Article IX of the Articles of Confederation specifically called for the election of a President. John Hanson, of Maryland, was elected the first President. The Articles of Confederation (Article I) called the new nation “The United States of America.” That would mean that John Hanson was the first President of the United States of America. How can we fix that quandary?

4.“George Washington served as the first President of the United States of America under the Constitution.”

(The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson only served from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation. Six other presidents were elected after him - Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) - all prior to Washington taking office.)

George Washington was definitely not the first President. He wasn’t even the first President of the United States of America. He was the first President of the United States of America under the Constitution we follow today.

But, it sure is easier to say, “George Washington was the first President.”

This is precisely why wikipedia works: It is open for anyone to make corrections to it. This is also precisely why wikipedia is subject to failing. If you read the following line in wikipedia, wouldn’t you like to correct it?

“George Washington was the eighth President of the United States.”

Yes, you would want to correct it. You’d know that wasn’t correct. Everybody knows that wasn’t correct (don’t they?) Even though, as worded, it is precisely correct!

So, can wikipedia be wrong? Of course. Can it be corrected? Yes, you can edit it. Will you be making it more correct, or more wrong though? That, my friends, is why it is tough to edit wikipedia accurately, or to rely on it completely. It changes, it is fluid, and it may or may not be right—depending on how good “we the people” are at editing it.
And finally, since it is open to changes, it is possible for someone to come along and completely abuse their trust as an editor too, and change the first line to read, “George Washington was a traitor; a slave-holding killer, who led the colonials in a rebellion against their proper authority.” That sentence might be right too, but it doesn’t serve the interests of the public—it just vents someone’s aggression.

So can wikipedia give false information? Certainly. Even a President can lie!

Answer 2

Not any more false than Encyclopedia Britannica. While I think Wikipedia has some factual errors and biases, it at least includes more points of view than any other source. If information on Wikipedia is wrong, it is fixed before too long. The mainstream media by comparison, whenever they have been caught in a lie, denies that they are wrong for as long as they can get away with it and eventually just ignores it and hopes it will go away (they're still smearing the Duke Lacrosse players, whom an attorney general declared innocent; Dan Rather forged a document about Bush and didn't retract it; Bill O'Reilly is known for smearing people whom he disagrees with after they've left his show, often for as long as 6 months; a New York Times reporter in the 30s won a Pulitzer Prize for a propaganda piece glorifying the Soviet Union and they still haven't retracted the prize).

Wikipedia has had one major controversy regarding inaccurate information and they fixed it and have been removing the now well-known smear every time it is added back. You definitely don't get that kind of concern for the truth from the media.

Answer 3

Quite honestly, sometimes. True, anyone can contribute, but they do monitor things very well. If you put one false fact on there, a million people will say you're wrong. Getting kicked off is incredibly easy like that. Sure, there's a one in a million chance that there is something wrong on there, but Wikipedia notifies you. They'll have an alert up on the top of the screen saying that something was quoted from a gossip magazine, so might not be true. They always cite their sources, so you can decide whether or not to believe them. There are haters and lovers of Wikipedia, and I myself am a lover of it. I looked up Grey's Anatomy on there, and it showed that a lot of the material was rumor from the internet and celebrity magazines. The fact is that anyone can post anything on the internet, so Wikipedia isn't really that bad. It provides as good of info as an encyclopedia.

Answer 4

While Wikipedia is a great site for information, it is only as good as the information entered into it by the public. Information on Wikipedia can be:

- Correct
- Unintentionally incorrect
- Intentionally incorrect
- Incomplete

When using information from Wikipedia, please consult the references to a particular topic until you get back to a reliable source. In general though, Wikipedia has been correct for the topics that I've been interested in.

Answer 5

Think of it this way: Hundreds of thousands of people look at Wikipedia. Of those people, there will be people who, either by accident or on purpose, post false information. But there's also lots of people who actually patrol the pages, and there's going to be a correction really fast. So unless you're incredibly unlucky, no, it doesn't.

Answer 6

You betcha! There is some good stuff there, but just about anyone can literally go on there and say whatever they want to, and they do. Wikipedia does the best they can to keep it clean and accurate, but it is literally impossible to catch it all. So Wikipedia is a decent place to get some basic information, but you'll want to confirm it before you start using it in any substantial way.

Answer 7

Sometimes. Because anyone can contribute there are a lot of opinions on there and the people contributing aren't always reliable. For example, one man claiming to be a science professor who made over 22,000 entries was found to be a 21 yr old high school drop out. It's good for finding things out but if you want to use it as a reference, it is better to try and find the same information in a book or verify it through other sources.

Answer 8

Since anyone can add to an article and all they need to do is give a name, username, and password some off the stuff may be true and may be false or someones opinion. I would check their sources (listed at the bottom of the article) to make sure it is true or use another website on the topic

Answer 9

Yes, People can Spam and Create False Information.

Answer 10

sometimes it does because vandals edit it and put in false information on it. But if they have wikipedia normally put up a warning on the top of the article warning that it has been vandalized