Are wikipedia errors common?

[OS]

another thing is the quality between articles is inconsistent

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: 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.

Wiki is becoming an incredible source material for that very reason. I use it quite often for a quick reference for various things. For the most part, errors are few and far between. Many of the errors I do find are usually disagreements between different communities or other things like this. Many "facts" are commonly disputed and there are many a reputable source that will publish say a biological fact that is completely opposite of what another reputable source says. Wiki is great because there is no time wasted in the editing. When something is proven wrong it can be quickly fixed. I think an excellent example is something I recently found while studying for an anatomy midterm.

Quote from wiki

The superior oblique muscle, or obliquus oculi superior, is a fusiform muscle in the upper, medial side of the orbit whose primary action is intorsion and whose secondary actions are to abduct (laterally rotate) and depress the eyeball (i.e. it makes the eye move outward and downward). One of the extraocular muscles, the superior oblique is the only muscle innervated by the trochlear nerve.

The primary action of the superior oblique muscle is intorsion; the secondary action is depression (primarily in the adducted position); the tertiary action is abduction. A brief survey of neurology and physiology texts and websites reveals much confusion about the role of the superior oblique muscle, with many sources claiming that its role is to move the eye towards the nose. In fact, because of its positioning, it is able to rotate the eye away from the nose so that when the eye is already adducted (looking directly "inwards") its rotational action turns the pupil downwards to look towards the mouth, which many texts misinterpret as its primary action.

I took the liberty of highlighting the important parts. My professor while going over the material told us in class that our books had this same error in it that wiki has pointed out. Apparently for years it was a "fact" that this eye muscle worked a certain way. It has very recently be changed and it is still incorrectly published.

Amazing stuff since everyone is sooooo quick to point out an error on wiki, yet a $170 text book for an advanced level anatomy class at a major university from a reputable author and publishing company prints a known error and they are still considered a better source... funny huh?

 

[Vic]

Yes, errors are somewhat common on wikipedia. However, so are references and sources. Which is the beauty of wikipedia. It's one stop references shopping.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Vic
Yes, errors are somewhat common on wikipedia. However, so are references and sources. Which is the beauty of wikipedia. It's one stop references shopping.

:thumbsup:

Saw a post somewhere about courts citing Wikipedia...

100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: 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.

Wiki is becoming an incredible source material for that very reason. I use it quite often for a quick reference for various things. For the most part, errors are few and far between. Many of the errors I do find are usually disagreements between different communities or other things like this. Many "facts" are commonly disputed and there are many a reputable source that will publish say a biological fact that is completely opposite of what another reputable source says. Wiki is great because there is no time wasted in the editing. When something is proven wrong it can be quickly fixed. I think an excellent example is something I recently found while studying for an anatomy midterm.

Quote from wiki

The superior oblique muscle, or obliquus oculi superior, is a fusiform muscle in the upper, medial side of the orbit whose primary action is intorsion and whose secondary actions are to abduct (laterally rotate) and depress the eyeball (i.e. it makes the eye move outward and downward). One of the extraocular muscles, the superior oblique is the only muscle innervated by the trochlear nerve.

The primary action of the superior oblique muscle is intorsion; the secondary action is depression (primarily in the adducted position); the tertiary action is abduction. A brief survey of neurology and physiology texts and websites reveals much confusion about the role of the superior oblique muscle, with many sources claiming that its role is to move the eye towards the nose. In fact, because of its positioning, it is able to rotate the eye away from the nose so that when the eye is already adducted (looking directly "inwards") its rotational action turns the pupil downwards to look towards the mouth, which many texts misinterpret as its primary action.

I took the liberty of highlighting the important parts. My professor while going over the material told us in class that our books had this same error in it that wiki has pointed out. Apparently for years it was a "fact" that this eye muscle worked a certain way. It has very recently be changed and it is still incorrectly published.

Amazing stuff since everyone is sooooo quick to point out an error on wiki, yet a $170 text book for an advanced level anatomy class at a major university from a reputable author and publishing company prints a known error and they are still considered a better source... funny huh?

the wiki was probably a copy/paste of the textbook

 

[zinfamous]

There are some pages that are notoriously innacurate, due to vandals ro gnerally biased individuals that would rather post scandalous information--most often to discredit someone. This is becoming commonplace during election season, where it has been shown that campaigns have actually sabotaged the pages of their rivals, or even created eronious Bios to that effect. I think the George W. Bush page has been on lock-down from the admins for some time as it was getting edited every 2 seconds...or something like that

A research article published in the journal "Science" last year reported that statistically,Wickepedia is actually 3% more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. (something like 95% vs 98%)

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 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.

One of my favorite entries on Conservapedia: Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

awesome! morons...

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: pontifex


the wiki was probably a copy/paste of the textbook

Did you even read what he wrote?

 

[jagec]

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

depends. For anything that might be controversial, like politics, religion, current events, celebrities and such, I wouldn't trust wikipedia very far.

For scientific stuff, it's usually just as accurate as a "real" encyclopedia. There was a study.

 

[sao123]

A perfect description of wikipedia...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters/

If surgery was like WIkipedia...And other Cult Horrors...
By Andrew Orlowski ? More by this author
Published Friday 9th March 2007 17:53 GMT
Research library - All papers free to download.
Re: Farewell, Wikipedia?

You may have seen this parody dotted about the web in the past couple of days. What better to lead off our postbag. It was submitted by Marco, who explains below how he came to compose it.

What better way to lead off the Wikipedia corner of the postbag.

If surgery was like Wikipedia: Surgipedia.
Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient's doctor that details the problem.

Surgipedian #1: "Whoa, he's been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a 'claudication' and a 'chronic venous insufficiency' in the left leg", looks at right leg, "and we are asked to do a 'leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam'. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me".

Surgipedian #2: "You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one".

Surgipedian #1: "I looked at the left and it's looking totally normal!"

Surgipedian #2: "The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?"

Surgipedian #3: "No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline 'Assume Good Faith'. #1 was just trying to be constructive!"

Surgipedian #2: "I was only trying to be constructive, too!"

Surgipedian #3: "Well, let's just get to back to this guy."

Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: "I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem".

Surgipedian #3: "Yup, you are right. It's something about the veins in the heart being clogged up."

Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: "I think it's something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!"

Surgipedian #1: "Can you cite a source for that?"

Surgipedian #2: "My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!"

Surgipedian #3: "Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let's get back to the man's heart problem! What should we do?"

Surgipedian #1: "I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something".

Surgipedian #3: "Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it".

Surgipedian #2: "Heh, that is original research, too!"

Surgipedian #3: "Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?"

Surgipedian #2: "Of course!"

Surgipedian #2: "Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man's ribs?"

Surgipedian #1: "You need a saw or something."

Surgipedian #3: "A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through".

Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.

Surgipedian #3: "I can't reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!"

Surgipedian #2: "Then do that thing with the veins!"

Surgipedian #3: "How do you do that?"

Surgipedian #2 "Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think".

Surgipedian #3: "But that is orig..., well let's try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?"

Surgipedian #1, #2: "Support".

Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline "Be Bold!", grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.

Surgeon: "Stop! What in the world are you doing?"

Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open".

Surgeon: "What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone's heart will kill that person?"

Surgipedian #1: "We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?"

Surgeon: "You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?"

Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: "Please, no personal attacks!"

Surgeon: "I will fvcking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!"

Surgipedian #3: "We need to call an admin!"

Surgeon: "Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!"

An admin comes by.

Admin: "I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules".

Surgeon: "I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a knife into his heart!"

Admin: "Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review

Surgipedia guidelines and rules".

Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.

Surgipedian #3: "Okay, where were we?"

Surgipedian #2: "You were about to cut his heart."

Surgipedian #3: "Yup. I propose that so-called 'surgeon' was just a troll and we should go ahead."

Surgipedian #1 and #2: "Agree".

Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man's heart, who is dead within moments.

Surgipedian #3: "Why did he die?"

Surgipedian #1: "It's his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!"

[All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia.]
This sounded very well observed. Was this based on personal experience, we wondered? Marco explained -

"Well, I have at one time tried to correct an article on a subject I have pretty deep knowledge about and start a new one, independent, but related to it. The editor who apparently thought he had the ownership of the former, reverted my edits and filed the latter for deletion, claiming it was spam. An admin later restored my work and reprimanded that editor, but this ended my active involvement in Wikipedia; it simply seemed to bothersome to spend time on it."

"However, the continuous news about Wikipedia in the media, its constant appearance in search engine results and the fact that students I have to deal with rely more and more on what Wikipedia tells them prompted me to take a second look, this time especially behind the scenes. And I was amazed by what's happening there; Wikipedia may be the biggest, albeit unwillingly so, experiment on social psychology ever conducted and through the mechanisms involved a threat to correct and verified knowledge. One of your other readers may be right when he claims that Wikipedia is a cult or sect."

"And that's why I took the time to write that piece: Wikipedia sneaks up in just about every search engine result I encounter and permeates students I have to conduct work with with a false sense of knowledge. I have to deal with Wikipedia although I chose not to, and when an ordinary website gets that much power, something is going wrong."

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 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...

soo what are you trying to say?