Do you believe EVERYTHING that you read?

Question

I find Wikipedia as a great source of information but you have to take it at face value. I have seen many an error in plenty of their topics. It is not the end all, be all, as some would believe it to be. Just because Wikipedia says it is true, does not make it true.

Thoughts?

BTW, I posted this in the hockey section because I see it is used as a reference alot here and because you are my peeps.

Answer 1

No way. I think Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia on the Internet, but it's still run by people and can be edited by people. To clear some things up though (maybe):

1) Wikipedia checks and deletes any information that is OBVIOUSLY bull. (I know this mostly because they have 24 HOUR SURVEILLANCE on Gary Roberts' page... Too many Pens fans editing it and putting stuff under his "Achievements" like "2007- 1st NHL player to successfully do dick pushups.")

2) For EVERY tidbit of information (for every point that is, not paragraph or sentence) there's SUPPOSED to be a SOURCE linked to. If there isn't a source for information that ISN'T obviously bull, Wikipedia will put a NOTE at the top saying something along the lines of "This article contains some information without a cited source..."

3) If you don't take any of the above into account when you use something like Wikipedia... you should start doing so.

...I also know some (bitter) Pens fans added Jason Spezza to Wikipedia's "List of people who have disappeared" (which includes suspected kidnap and suicide/homicide victims) during his Stanley Cup finals lack-of-presence. LOL.

Answer 2

I agree... you should always double check your information.

Little story... during the Academy Awards last year, I looked up the past "best picture" winners on Wikipedia, to see which ones I had seen. This year's winner was already up there, except someone had changed it to "Snakes on a Plane."

Now I love SoaP, I own it actually, but I'm pretty sure that type of movie is above the Academy, and did NOT win best picture.

Any student will tell you... your professors will yell at you if you try to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper, for the simple reason that it's not reliable. Of course, I used it all the time.

Answer 3

Wikipedia should not be used as an exclusive reference, you're right.

As a forum, there are no safeguards to protect against incorrect or even intentional misinformation.

I noticed the site had Vaclav Nedomansky listed as a right handed shot. I knew this to be wrong and the site allowed me to make a 'correction' without a sign-in or membership protocol. I was amazed at the ease with which I was allowed to make the change. What if my intent were to corrupt the factual accuracy of the content, instead?

With all the yahoos out there with time to burn, I'm really surprised to see the content is not tampered with on a daily basis.

Answer 4

If your looking for pure numbers with none of the fluff, I recommend everyone on here use hockeydb.com to get their statistics. Its just facts, no opinions.
Other than that, I am with Puck and use my memory for most of my info. Of course that may explain why I am wrong so often, my brain has been swimming in Guinness for the last 12 years and has forged its own memories.

I kind of have a mixed POV overall on this issue. I really like the idea that information can be so easily accessible to those who want to learn, but the idea of filling people with misinformation seems a little worse than them not having access to the truth. Bottom line is that Wiki should never be somebodies first choice for information due to the ease that information can be manipulated on its pages.

Answer 5

Until recently anyone could post anything on Wiki which makes most of their material of a dubious nature. Use the Regan rule of thumb here, 'Trust but confirm." When working in radio years back we had to confirm things from two trusted sources before we could use it in any of our on-air programming so I still adhere to that standard to this day.
I will admit I do a lot of stuff by memory since hockey has been the one consistant in my life since age 6.

Answer 6

I've noticed that as well and can appreciate their honesty about it with their disclaimer.

It has been a reliable source but I'm too old to get all my info from one source. It is good that you have pointed it out as some folks may not be aware of the inaccuracies that exist on that site.

Answer 7

Well, duh! Even pre-Internet, you have to be a complete doofus to believe the crap shoveled by newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. Always been thus.

The beauty, though, of wiki is it's very easy to correct errors unlike mainstream media. You find something wrong and can back that up with hard facts, go in and correct it. That's why wiki is so great--it's the best site on the Web bar maybe amazon in the way it functions.

Answer 8

wiki is actually pretty reliable overall. there are some deliberate trolls changing things, that's true, but mostly it's just a few small mistakes.

any source has those small mistakes, but wiki is an easier target. That said, I only use it as an overview of a topic, which is what an encyclopedia is for anyway.

Answer 9

Never used Wikipedia, I've heard it articles for the general public written by the general public.

Hell, there are enough errors in the NHL statistical database if I need errors ;)

Answer 10

Wiki is a great site and very useful, but as there is with any situation in life, sometimes there are mistakes in the info that is provided.

The cool thing is if you see false info, you have the ability to change it.

Maybe you should get a page Loblaw...