Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia namespace 2 Is it just me or 3 Certain subject matter and reliability 4 College professor's remarks 5 Conspiracy Theories 6 Anti-elitism

[edit] Wikipedia namespace

Do you think this article should be moved to Wikipedia:Reliability? It seems more like the kind of thing that should be in there.
FLaRN (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I considered it but in fact, it is an article material. Its not a collection of Wikipedia quotes or anything arbitrary, or a collection of media quotes. In the same way that an article on some software might have a "Criticisms of X" subtopic, or some diagnostic test might have a "Reliability of diagnostic test X" subtopic, the article on Wikipedia has a legitimate subtopic covering Wikipedia's own reliability. That article should be sourced, verifiable, neutral, and so on, and cover both majority and significant-minority views and their evidence, as well as touch on its own related matters, and that's what this article does. Articles such as Wikipedia quotes, clippings, projects, strategies, management, and the like, belong in the Wikipedia: namespace. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"A rough consensus seems to emerge from librarian and academic reviewers that although there is skepticism, Wikipedia is considered even by skeptics to be a valuable resource, that it is on the whole accurate and objective"

Talk about POV. For what it's worth I find that 99% of articles don't cite sources. This is blatant politics and should be removed. Mglovesfun 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

When I researched and wrote the article, I looked up every source I could find, where an authenticated seemingly-reputable librarian appreared to have formally stated a view of some significance on the subject. This included reviewing guidance issued by college librarians on Wikipedia's use and their perceptions. These are documented in the section under librarian views, and that statement is a concise summary of the views which emerged. The subject of this article is Reliability of Wikipedia, and for that purpose it cites its sources fully, and with care. If theres evidence otherwise it would be useful to read it. And also, views (like everything) can change over time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it just me or

Is it just me or does this article seem unreliable?Sabrebattletank 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's actually pretty carefully researched. If there are material inaccuracies or misrepresentations then bring them to the talk page or correct them. "Seems unreliable" doesn't really seem to say much other than to indicate that the reader has not gone to the trouble of checking for him/herself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Bad joke.Sabrebattletank 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certain subject matter and reliability

I suspect that Wikipedia's reliability depends on the topic you are reading about. For instance if the nature study is to be believed Wikipedia is a reasonably accurate and reliable source for scientific articles. However the philosophical articles are widely agreed by the editors belonging to the Wikiproject philosophy to be a nightmare of factual inaccuracy and confusion created by amateurs with little or no formal study of philosophy. Personally I believe that the more abstract a topic is, the more likely inaccuracy will be present. Additionally complex topics with many conceptual intricacies that are nevertheless deeply interesting to many members of the public ( such as Philosophy). Using philosophy as an example again it's notable that drier philosophical topics which would attract few non specialists who don't work in related fields, like the philosophy of logic, seem to be more accurate and trample over less technical distinctions than topics such as arguments for and against the existence of God.

Could we discuss differences in reliability between topics in the article?

Sure, sounds good. Go for it. Sabrebattletank 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, use reliable sources to do it. Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so nothing published here counts. I know there was also a review of historical topics that someone published. GRBerry 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to see a study on the quality of wikipedia articles excluding those less than one year old, or something like that. I'd imagine the results would be high on the side of reliability, but I'd really like to know. MulletManDan 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College professor's remarks

I go to Middle Tennessee State University, and one of the professors, a man who taught the subject of Global History, stated that Wikipedia should not be used as a dependable source; his reasons why were the choppyness of the articles; the fact that anyone without credentials, or even an education, can edit the pages; the way a lot of it is written, i.e. in 5th Grade English or worse.

In a way, that professor is right in that there needs to be more professionalism (not necessarily credentials) in how an article is written and presented. But I don't believe that Wikipedia should be a sub-standard reference work, and I don't believe Wikipedia should be ignored as far as research and authoritativeness goes. I think everyone who writes in should do their utmost to ensure a standard of excellence here. And if some sitting professors still think otherwise...perhaps Wikipedia should consider and encourage them to write their own articles on any given subject, which will make Wikipedia better still. Carajou 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I teach English Composition at a college in upstate New York. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I tell my students I will take one whole letter grade off their papers for every Wikipedia citation that appears. Research is only good as the quality and accountability of the sources and the authors, both of which are lacking with Wikipedia. -- Jango Davis 12:30 (UTC), 19 February 2007.

[edit] Conspiracy Theories

I don't think this new addition actually informs readers in any way upon the factual reliability of Wikipedia. It at most says "an uncited and un-numbered minority think there could be bias due to conspiracy theories".

But this article is about assessing bias, and doesn't particularly dwell on speculated causes (real or otherwise). The testers of bias are academics, librarians and other commentators on the online information world, and their views are given. I'm thinking that a section "Some people think there is a conspiracy theory" doesn't add any notable substantial content.

I am minded to think it can be removed as not adding to the article. If needed try a separate article, "Conspiracy theories about Wikipedia", if there are any, and they are notable.

Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection; I thought I was being fairly charitable in just slapping the {{unreferenced}} tag onto it. GRBerry 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. There's no problem with having a paragraph on that subject, if reliable sources can be found and cited. However, the paragraph would probably be better suited to Criticism of Wikipedia – Qxz 03:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-elitism

Here are examples of anti-elitism attitudes by Wikipedia editors:

“Just because you can recite the defense by heart doesn't mean you know more then me.” TripleH1976 User talk:196.15.168.40 (that discussion seems to have been removed recently)

“He's able to recite the date of court testimony and who made them. He knows the numbers of the state evidence.” Fighting for Justice Talk:David_Westerfield/Archive2 (in the Notes section)

None of that was intended as praise, and it reveals an antagonism towards people who are knowledgeable about the subject. That can discourage experts and is not conducive to reliable articles.196.2.56.5 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)