Have You Ever Found Wikipedia To Be Inaccurate?

[Rowtag]

I've heard of several teachers who don't allow students to use Wikipedia because they don't believe the information is correct. To my knowledge, I've not experienced this but then I'm not usually looking of things I know much about. Have you checked Wikipedia in an area where you have knowledge and it was wrong?

[Hadlai]

Yes! I've seen numerous falsehoods,but also some great info. Here are several examples and why I?ve stopped using Wkipedia.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_protein   There?s a plethora of poor data in this article,particularly regarding the quality and amino acids profiles of soy protein.   This article has been editted,but it used to say that eggs had the highest biological value of any protein in humans.That?s BS.Eggs BV is just under 99,but whey has an "impossible" score of 104.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_(food)#Nutritional_value   There is generally only one search engine that I rely on for reference.That?s Google Scolar,but you do have to pay for many of the complete articles.Sometimes,you?re only given the abstract.    http://scholar.google.com/schhp?sourceid=navclient&hl=en   If I really thought about it,I could come up with more.I think that two articles is plenty to cast doubt,especially in such a small category,such as food proteins.   BrainBuilder_is_gone 91 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Weylin]

Typo. It should be: I'm not usually looking UP things I know much about.

[Delwynn]

It's amazingly self correcting I read an article on this.  Experts looked at science entries for Wikipedia and Britannica and found they were pretty close(though Wikipedia had more errors).  The amazing thing is, the Wikipedia errors were all corrected in a few days/weeks.  Britannica will need to wait for the next printing!   Here's one article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm   I think for scientific and historic issues, Wikipedia is very good(and MUCH more extensive than any other source).  For pop culture or controversial issues, the system breaks down, somewhat, and falls victum to abuse.  All in all, I think it's pretty amazing how well it works and it's often my first stop when researching something. ThoughtMonkey 91 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Barrak]

Sardis said: 1 Typo. It should be: I'm not usually looking UP things I know much about. 91 months ago

[Ruarc]

Here are several examples and why I?ve stopped using Wkipedia.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_protein   There?s a plethora of poor data in this article,particularly regarding the quality and amino acids profiles of soy protein.   This article has been editted,but it used to say that eggs had the highest biological value of any protein in humans.That?s BS.Eggs BV is just under 99,but whey has an "impossible" score of 104.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_(food)#Nutritional_value   There is generally only one search engine that I rely on for reference.That?s Google Scolar,but you do have to pay for many of the complete articles.Sometimes,you?re only given the abstract.    http://scholar.google.com/schhp?sourceid=navclient&hl=en   If I really thought about it,I could come up with more.I think that two articles is plenty to cast doubt,especially in such a small category,such as food proteins.  

[Verddun]

So on one hand, you've got that joe schmoe could have written that article.  On the other, you have that anyone can make a change to it and "presto", they have a source that says what they want it to say.   A perfect example of this is when Steven Colbert told his viewers to go to Wikpedia and change it to say that the population of elephants in Africa is increasing.  He actually made the change while on the air(and ended up getting his user name banned at Wikipedia!) and encouraged others to do the same.   There is also the problem that a lot of Wikipedia is just cut and paste from other pages, many times without referencing the source(you'll see a lot of 'citation needed' areas).  It can just sit there, day in and day out.   Here's my favorite example of the perils of Wikipedia:     That's for the part of your question about why teachers may not allow Wikipedia as a source.   I rarely use Wikipedia for anything more than reading some articles to pass the time.  Anonymously, I'll correct typos as I find them.  Most recently, I updated the Blade of Darkness page on wikipedia because it contained a lot of misinformation about this PC game.  Wikipedia Admins get a report any time changes are made, so they are supposed to be verifying info and making sure changes are malicious.   Here's an interesting article about someone deliberately inserting errors to see if they would be corrected.   http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html

[Eliseo]

I have one great example. I don't let my students use Wikipedia, and I have a handout I give them to show why. On the listing for my hometown, one of the famous citizens listed there is currently a sophomore at my school. He has an impressive, yet completely fictitious, list of accomplishments.  I have seen other examples, but that is one they can understand because they know the boy involved. I think it has now been corrected, but anyone who might have looked at that before it was removed would receive false information.  I know that some of the listing have good information, but there are far too many other reputable sites students can use, so I don't think it is worth the risk. Sources: my teaching experience BarbieM 91 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Voisttitoevetz]

Wikipedia prides itself on the fact that anyone can make a change So on one hand, you've got that joe schmoe could have written that article.  On the other, you have that anyone can make a change to it and "presto", they have a source that says what they want it to say.   A perfect example of this is when Steven Colbert told his viewers to go to Wikpedia and change it to say that the population of elephants in Africa is increasing.  He actually made the change while on the air(and ended up getting his user name banned at Wikipedia!) and encouraged others to do the same.   There is also the problem that a lot of Wikipedia is just cut and paste from other pages, many times without referencing the source(you'll see a lot of 'citation needed' areas).  It can just sit there, day in and day out.   Here's my favorite example of the perils of Wikipedia:     That's for the part of your question about why teachers may not allow Wikipedia as a source.   I rarely use Wikipedia for anything more than reading some articles to pass the time.  Anonymously, I'll correct typos as I find them.  Most recently, I updated the Blade of Darkness page on wikipedia because it contained a lot of misinformation about this PC game.  Wikipedia Admins get a report any time changes are made, so they are supposed to be verifying info and making sure changes are malicious.   Here's an interesting article about someone deliberately inserting errors to see if they would be corrected.   http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html 67alecto 91 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Curtis]

I don't let my students use Wikipedia, and I have a handout I give them to show why. On the listing for my hometown, one of the famous citizens listed there is currently a sophomore at my school. He has an impressive, yet completely fictitious, list of accomplishments.  I have seen other examples, but that is one they can understand because they know the boy involved. I think it has now been corrected, but anyone who might have looked at that before it was removed would receive false information.  I know that some of the listing have good information, but there are far too many other reputable sites students can use, so I don't think it is worth the risk.