Comments on: Would you trust WikiPedia with your life?

By: Jonathan Fernando

Jonathan Fernando — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:46:26 +0000

I would argue that most people expect this sort of misinformation when reading wikipedia; I know I do. Though you were lying about the dates, that sort of thing could happen, though most people who chose to be malignant on wikipedia go for flashier, more obvious things. In this context I have two points to make. Firstly, your friend would now be IP banned from wikipedia; the site has become such a part of so many lives that that is a risk few would take. Secondly, such minor, hard to notice changes matter very little in a general article: I study mediaeval history, and know roughly when most events happened, but 1204 is among the few dates I can recall to the year. If someone changes I minor technical piece of information, like a date, by a few years, few will even remember it if they read it before a specialist comes along and fixes it.

By: Jonathan Marks

Jonathan Marks — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:22:10 +0000

I would argue that any serious researcher or writer will use the two source rule. My specialist subject is traditional international media and having bought electronic articles from Britannica on subjects like media history in Mexico or Argentina, I can say I found a lot of the data to be muddled, out of date or just plain wrong. Perhaps it’s good for general knowledge, but for in depth stuff in my field it was pretty useless. Wikipedia turned out to be much better – when cross checked with some original research I did my self in the countries concerned. I am constantly surprised at how quickly some entries are updated by passionate people.

By: ICMCC Newspage » Blog Archive » Would you trust WikiPedia with your life?

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:06:42 +0000

[...] the information on other services like Answers.com or, well, the Encyclopedia Britannica.” Article Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten, The Next Web, 25 November [...]