SHP Forums

I'd say that Wikipedia is accurate, more often than not. The real problem isn't with the inaccuracy of the original authors of the article, but when people deface it or otherwise insert information that's wrong or just plain stupid.

I think most article writers attempt to be as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, some people get their "kicks" out of ruining their work.

I remember viewing a Wiki article on George Washington and although it was extremely thorough and (as far as I can recall) absolutely correct, there was one small problem. At the end of the article, someone felt the need to add "Simon is wrong."

The article was locked pretty quickly and re-edited. Even though Wikimedia is usually on-the-ball when it comes to inaccuracies (or other non-journalistic approaches), they can't do anything to proactively keep these things from occurring. The only way to do that would be to permanently lock down the articles and allow certain people to write. That goes against the very idea of Wikipedia in that it's a source anyone can contribute to at any time.

Wikipedia is wrong in many more instances than I could enumerate.

I would never use it as a source of information. I'm sorry - I am going to sound harsh and blunt, but the plain fact is that Wikipedia is a community effort where everyone's input - no matter how uninformed - is equal. Unless you're an expert, how can you assess whether the information is correct? I KNOW of many articles which are biased and full of misinformation, and I don't have the will or stamina for all-out trench warfare in editing again and again and again against the determination of a group of people who are not going to tire of reversing any edits that they don't like.

Bottom line: Wikipedia isn't written by experts; it's not verified by scholars; it's not reliable.

For scholars, non-scholars or amateur scholars wanting the right information, online subscription to the Encyclopaedia Britannica is only $69.95 a year. It's worth it to avoid looking like a Wikipedlar if you're writing something that needs reliable and scholarly/verified information.

BUT... none of that relates to Wikipedia with regard to something like the Sierra games. As long as you don't run into Sierra Vigilantes on Wikipedia (and I agree it's unlikely!), your edits to fix up any misinformation will be fine.

In Wikipedia's defense, they usually flag entries that are inaccurate or have been vandalized. I've seen notices where the article is called "biased" or "lacks sufficient information" as well. So the community leaders behind Wikipedia do try to be as accurate as possible. That doesn't mean they'll always succeed, but given the sheer size and scope of something like Wikipedia, I feel they've done a good job.

The problem with Wikipedia is that the accuracy of any article highly depends on the subject and who is writing it. While some people are very biased in their writings, others are far more objective. It helps if the article is over something that's considered "common" in everyday life, versus some area that's virtually unheard of or is unique in some way.

I don't mind Wikipedia articles that footnotes. Those at least say where the majority of the info came from to make the entry. If any article lacks any footnotes, then I become highly suspicious.

As for paying a subscription fee... I can't see myself (or the vast majority of people online) doing that. If I really want something written by experts or scholars, I can find it or purchase it in an online/offline book store. The idea of paying an annual fee of $70 seems unnecessary when money is tight and could be better spent elsewhere.

(Mind you, DPX, that $69.95 is in Australian Dollars...)

Ya editing a Wikipedia page might not be a good idea because with all them admins who are very picky and biased and refuse to accept a edited page or a new one. Most of the articles that wikipedia has are mostly accurate.