Are wikipedia errors common?

[Beev]

I was browsing ATOT and came across the "get amber alerts on your cell phone" thread. I signed up, and also did a wikipedia search for amber alert to see what all it contained. I like to break off and click nearly every link within an article on wiki and read them as well . Well, I found one for "The PROTECT Act of 2003" and spotted something I don't get:

*Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in (Miller test) obscene OR engaged in sex acts.

And then a few lines lower:

*Does not include drawings,cartoons,and /or comic satire

Now what exactly does THAT mean?

 

[Inspector Jihad]

i look up a lot of biology articles there and I havent come across any mistakes...and i use it as a cross reference so i'd notice if any of the major details are wrong. seems like a good reference to me, although i'm pretty sure that vandals dont mess with a wikipedia article on channelopathies.

 

[Beev]

Oh don't get me wrong, I find lots of great info. It's just that if the part I quoted is actually correct, it sure doesn't sound that way.

Edit: Ahha! Maybe the first line means drawings of real people, and the second is drawings of fake and incredibly cartoony people?

 

[sao123]

wikipedia is full of errors, in fact there was **you might still find it if you search** a page depicting all the errors in wikipedia...

 

[pontifex]

hmm...the site that is editable by random people...think there might be any errors?

 

[Beev]

That wasn't the question. The question was "are they common."

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Sraaz
That wasn't the question. The question was "are they common."

is that in response to my post? if so, read my post again, the comment and question still applies.

 

[Beev]

Well, if you want me to interpret it differently then ok. The context of your entire post makes no sense then. What was it in response to?

 

[pontifex]

reading comprehension, ftw?

logic, ftw?

 

[Beev]

I asked a question, you responded with an answer that didn't exactly answer it. Who has the comprehension problem?

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: Sraaz
That wasn't the question. The question was "are they common."

Ummm....he pretty much answered the question.....

Originally posted by: Sraaz
I asked a question, you responded with an answer that didn't exactly answer it. Who has the comprehension problem?

yes, he did answer it.

 

[pontifex]

man, i knew people on here were dense, but goddamn...

you asked if it's common for wikis to have errors.

i said that it's a site editable by anyone.

logic would say that if anyone can edit it, there's a high chance for people just fvcking around and/or making errors...

 

[ksaajasto]

yeah, i know a bunch of kids who just insert one random curse word somewhere within the article.
KS

 

[Aikouka]

I remember reading an article in the news that remarked about a study that checked various pages on Wikipedia compared to Britannica, and they both had about the same number of errors overall.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I remember reading an article in the news that remarked about a study that checked various pages on Wikipedia compared to Britannica, and they both had about the same number of errors overall.

What about bias?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I remember reading an article in the news that remarked about a study that checked various pages on Wikipedia compared to Britannica, and they both had about the same number of errors overall.

What about bias?

It amazes me that people complain about bias in Wikipedia when you can change it yourself. If there is a disagreement between two users who are editing the same section, you take it to the Talk page to discuss as a group. If that fails (i.e. you're dealing with a child) there are appointed editors who can step in and ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's standard of neutrality (and if necessary they can block new and anonymous users from editing the article).

The system works pretty well if you use it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I remember reading an article in the news that remarked about a study that checked various pages on Wikipedia compared to Britannica, and they both had about the same number of errors overall.

What about bias?

It amazes me that people complain about bias in Wikipedia when you can change it yourself. If there is a disagreement between two users who are editing the same section, you take it to the Talk page to discuss as a group. If that fails (i.e. you're dealing with a child) there are appointed editors who can step in and ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's standard of neutrality (and if necessary they can block new and anonymous users from editing the article).

The system works pretty well if you use it.

Who said I was speaking of Wikipedia?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I remember reading an article in the news that remarked about a study that checked various pages on Wikipedia compared to Britannica, and they both had about the same number of errors overall.

What about bias?

It amazes me that people complain about bias in Wikipedia when you can change it yourself. If there is a disagreement between two users who are editing the same section, you take it to the Talk page to discuss as a group. If that fails (i.e. you're dealing with a child) there are appointed editors who can step in and ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's standard of neutrality (and if necessary they can block new and anonymous users from editing the article).

The system works pretty well if you use it.

So you can take it to the talk page to vote...

the truth is not a democracy... just ebcause a moajority believe one thing, where a minority believe another... this does not dictate that either is the truth.

 

[djheater]

While common sense would seem to indicate that there would be many errors, and false information, I would wager that there aren't.
People who are driven to create and maintain the articles correctly, outweigh those who aren't or vandals, so on the whole I bet it's generally accurate, though not by any means on the level of established peer-reviewed journals.
I would also wager that vandalism, false information and inaccuracies are probably greater in some specific subjects than others.

I would be interested in research about this, as indicative of community projects generally.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I remember reading an article in the news that remarked about a study that checked various pages on Wikipedia compared to Britannica, and they both had about the same number of errors overall.

Yeah I read an article about this. Wikipedia has slightly less errors. I'd say Wikipedia probably has a slight American bias and probably an anti-Muslim bias because of the large proportion of Americans, but it's actually usually pretty neutral.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused
Who said I was speaking of Wikipedia?

Who said I was speaking about you?

Well I was, partly, but also your comment made me think of this, which is a completely pointless website since Wikipedia can (and should) be edited to have no bias.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: sao123

So you can take it to the talk page to vote...

the truth is not a democracy... just ebcause a moajority believe one thing, where a minority believe another... this does not dictate that either is the truth.

You don't vote, you discuss. People may not agree on a subject, but they can generally agree on how to edit an article to be neutral. That usually involves presenting both sides with neutral language.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: sao123

So you can take it to the talk page to vote...

the truth is not a democracy... just ebcause a moajority believe one thing, where a minority believe another... this does not dictate that either is the truth.

You don't vote, you discuss. People may not agree on a subject, but they can generally agree on how to edit an article to be neutral. That usually involves presenting both sides with neutral language.

meh... when there is a difference of opinions on a wiki talk page... the opinion with the most voices is always the one represented... it always happens...
feels like a vote to me.

 

[hjo3]

Are wikipedia errors common?

Are you kidding? I used to correct the spelling and grammar errors I came across, but then I noticed that a couple of my changes had been reversed to the original (wrong) version, so I stopped bothering.

 

[Platypus]

Of course, wikipedia is filled with opinion, not fact.