Next Question
RSS
My hat is off to Wikipedia for making the model work at all. When it first launched, I was sure it would never be sustainable (since spammers and trolls would ruin the content). That has not generally been the case, which is nothing short of a miracle.
That said, Wikipedia's biggest weakness is ingrained in the strength of the community. There are a large number of wiki-pedians who have special permissions beyond those of the average editor. It is a mistake to view Wikipedia as a completely democratic/egalitarian system, since special powerful rights are given to several thousand of these editors.
The most irritating special editorial right is that of "speedy deletion". Editors have used this as a blunt instrument to squelch articles that don't adhere to Wikipedia's definition of "truth" (for example, people who create or edit pages about themselves or their own companies). But since speedy deletion expunges all edits and comments completely, the victims of speedy deletion have little recourse. There is an arcane appeal process, but mere mortals will not be able to navigate it to successfully get their page/edits reinstated.
Over time, I've seen a lot a great contributions to Wikipedia articles completely deleted because they did not comply with someone's ideal for "neutral Point of View". The current system not only is not "fair" but is highly inefficient resulting a lot of churn and conflict between submitters.
I am one of many people that have simply stopped contributing to it because of these problems. I'd rather own (and stand behind) my own content; hopefully the search engines evolve to promote and drive traffic to those most valued sources that are outside of the the walled garden of Wikipedia.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_delete
Permalink | Report
Others to look at, and some have free trials and premium services:
http://www.britannica.com
http://www.encyclopedia.com
http://encarta.msn.com
http://www.questia.com
http://www.worldbookonline.com
Permalink | Report
I don't like that some internal politics seem to be resulting in censorship of material (see link below).
Source(s):
http://www.wikitruth.info
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Moderation would help, but that also detracts from what makes Wikipedia so good, a free medium that allows a constant update of ideas.
Hope this helps. Just my 2 cents.
Granted I
Permalink | Report
One of the first things I learned in high school was that encyclopedias are not to be considered a citable source for research projects or term papers. They represent an excellent place to START research, as they may provide ideas for avenues of research that you could never have thought of on your own. But they are a beginning, not an end—because in covering all subjects to a limited extent, it cannot concentrate on any one subject to a GREAT extent. That is what more directed sources such as books, magazines, etc. are for.
Wikipedia is exactly like that. In fact, in some ways, it may be better than an ordinary encyclopedia for telling you how and where to research your topic, because any well-written article will have a list of citations at the end that will lead you to magazine articles, books, and other media that you CAN use as primary sources.
Wikipedia IS a great place to START your research—but because it is an encyclopedia, it is a lousy place to end it.
Permalink | Report
So my rule of thumb is to always check the info there on another site. I don't know any other site that can offer as complete information as on Wikipedia, but at least I can catch glaring errors this way.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
The thing that makes wikipedia "not so good" for me personally is that I've come across several pages that had incorrect information due to the fact that they allow anyone and everyone to edit. Sure, they track your IP if you don't log in when you make a change, but that doesn't always prompt them to correct errors that have been left on pages. The internet is a great resource for information, and one of the things I like about Mahalo in comparison to Wikipedia, is that instead of stopping at the Guide Note and Fast Facts, we take things a couple steps further by citing all of the facts used that aren't common knowledge and we provide the best links on the net where you can find out everything you need to know about the subject. With Wikipedia, you have their resources cited section, but other than that, they expect you to take their word for it.
Even the most world renowned experts will gladly lead people to more information about the subject, encouraging them to further their own learning experience. Of course, the time I have spent as a freelancer for Mahalo may have biased me a little bit, but I really feel that Wikipedia is okay if you're looking for something quick and fun, but if you really want to learn about something, a place like Mahalo will get the job done.
Permalink | Report
Bad information is a problem, but aware readers can see the information and judge for themselves. The big problem with wikipedia is that it's too easy to delete comments you don't like, or to get rid of information that is still in the process of being developed. Readers can't judge for themselves whether this deleted material is bad because someone else decided it wasn't bland enough (or was too bland) to be included. For an especially ironic example, see the recent scuffle over Deletionpedia.
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$2
January 02, 2009 07:59 AM
Why is Wikipedia not so Great?
I love Wikipedia, it's been a huge source for me the last few years and it comes in handy when I am searching for information on topics I have no idea about. I think it's great, and I know not all agree.
I always try to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the most ideal place to end your research, in many cases you don't know where the information came from or who wrote it or if it's been moderated or fact checked.
I stumbled into this answer, whats yours?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great
I always try to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the most ideal place to end your research, in many cases you don't know where the information came from or who wrote it or if it's been moderated or fact checked.
I stumbled into this answer, whats yours?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| January 02, 2009 09:00 PM |
That said, Wikipedia's biggest weakness is ingrained in the strength of the community. There are a large number of wiki-pedians who have special permissions beyond those of the average editor. It is a mistake to view Wikipedia as a completely democratic/egalitarian system, since special powerful rights are given to several thousand of these editors.
The most irritating special editorial right is that of "speedy deletion". Editors have used this as a blunt instrument to squelch articles that don't adhere to Wikipedia's definition of "truth" (for example, people who create or edit pages about themselves or their own companies). But since speedy deletion expunges all edits and comments completely, the victims of speedy deletion have little recourse. There is an arcane appeal process, but mere mortals will not be able to navigate it to successfully get their page/edits reinstated.
Over time, I've seen a lot a great contributions to Wikipedia articles completely deleted because they did not comply with someone's ideal for "neutral Point of View". The current system not only is not "fair" but is highly inefficient resulting a lot of churn and conflict between submitters.
I am one of many people that have simply stopped contributing to it because of these problems. I'd rather own (and stand behind) my own content; hopefully the search engines evolve to promote and drive traffic to those most valued sources that are outside of the the walled garden of Wikipedia.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_delete
| Asker's Rating: |
• Thank you Mckoss, it is true that Wikipedia being around for this long speaks volumes over any complaint against it. The Delete button is nasty and I have been a victim of it in the past.
I wonder if they will ever change their business model, if they do? Time will tell.
I wonder if they will ever change their business model, if they do? Time will tell.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (11)
January 02, 2009 08:05 AM
There are services out there that are reliable for facts than Wikipedia, yet it's free, quick, and easy. Others to look at, and some have free trials and premium services:
http://www.britannica.com
http://www.encyclopedia.com
http://encarta.msn.com
http://www.questia.com
http://www.worldbookonline.com
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 02, 2009 08:55 AM
I like it that such a wide variety of info is available free from one site. You can find info on all kinds of topics, and you can even add an article for yourself and stuff you care about that hasn't already been made available. I don't like that some internal politics seem to be resulting in censorship of material (see link below).
Source(s):
http://www.wikitruth.info
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 02, 2009 02:22 PM
I think that Wikipedia is great for the same reason it is not great. Anyone can edit the data. Yes, the community has some good policing methods in place to prevent (try to) false information going up on the site. Yes, we all understand that all of the information may not necessarily have been fact checked. The great thing is: Anyone can add their knowledge. The bad thing is: Anyone can add their knowledge. Would you really want your uncle Earl who works at a trash dump in Alabama putting his two cents in on the nuclear fission page? The great thing is that if he's an expert he could really add something valuable. The bad thing is that if he's just being a jerk he can mess all sorts of stuff up.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 02, 2009 03:09 PM
Intuitively and academically, my largest issue with Wikipedia is the fact that it depends on information liquidity to be accurate and fact checked. The accuracy of obscure topics and new subjects is highly volatile and can range from expert to barely researched. Moderation would help, but that also detracts from what makes Wikipedia so good, a free medium that allows a constant update of ideas.
Hope this helps. Just my 2 cents.
Granted I
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 02, 2009 04:31 PM
Leaving issues of reliability of user-contributed information aside, Wikipedia is "not so great" for scholastic research for much the same reasons as any other encyclopedia. One of the first things I learned in high school was that encyclopedias are not to be considered a citable source for research projects or term papers. They represent an excellent place to START research, as they may provide ideas for avenues of research that you could never have thought of on your own. But they are a beginning, not an end—because in covering all subjects to a limited extent, it cannot concentrate on any one subject to a GREAT extent. That is what more directed sources such as books, magazines, etc. are for.
Wikipedia is exactly like that. In fact, in some ways, it may be better than an ordinary encyclopedia for telling you how and where to research your topic, because any well-written article will have a list of citations at the end that will lead you to magazine articles, books, and other media that you CAN use as primary sources.
Wikipedia IS a great place to START your research—but because it is an encyclopedia, it is a lousy place to end it.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 02, 2009 04:35 PM
I'm with you, Jeff. I've used it a lot over the last few years. But I know a lot depends on when you look at it, because it's constantly being edited. So if some goofball decides to mess up an entry with completely bogus information, it will most likely get caught and corrected quickly. But if I'm in a hurry researching something, I might not come back to it and catch the correction until too late. That, as I see it, is the biggest pitfall. So my rule of thumb is to always check the info there on another site. I don't know any other site that can offer as complete information as on Wikipedia, but at least I can catch glaring errors this way.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 02, 2009 06:09 PM
Wikipedia is a "democracy of knowledge". Anyone may write an article. Anyone who sees or thinks s/he sees an error may correct/amend it. You may catch an article between error and correction/amendment. While articles are very useful for general knowledge, they are perhaps MOST useful for their links to other other specific resources throughout the internet.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 02, 2009 06:13 PM
I like it because of the level of cross referencing that would be impossible to achieve with a paper encyclopedia. Back in the day we had to do research by digging through book after book, it was a lot of work. Now we can go straight to Wikipedia and do most of the basic research in seconds. Even if you still were to go back to books for more reliable sources, this cross referencing is priceless.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 02, 2009 09:10 PM
I have always felt that Wikipedia is a great diving off point, but to stop at Wikipedia and say, "Well, I learned everything there is to know about nuclear physics," would just be silly, as you know. When I first started working on Mahalo in August 2007, I worked primarily in literature and history and Wikipedia and Wikisource were sources we commonly relied on for basics, occasionally actually literature, but beyond that what they had to offer was very simple. The thing that makes wikipedia "not so good" for me personally is that I've come across several pages that had incorrect information due to the fact that they allow anyone and everyone to edit. Sure, they track your IP if you don't log in when you make a change, but that doesn't always prompt them to correct errors that have been left on pages. The internet is a great resource for information, and one of the things I like about Mahalo in comparison to Wikipedia, is that instead of stopping at the Guide Note and Fast Facts, we take things a couple steps further by citing all of the facts used that aren't common knowledge and we provide the best links on the net where you can find out everything you need to know about the subject. With Wikipedia, you have their resources cited section, but other than that, they expect you to take their word for it.
Even the most world renowned experts will gladly lead people to more information about the subject, encouraging them to further their own learning experience. Of course, the time I have spent as a freelancer for Mahalo may have biased me a little bit, but I really feel that Wikipedia is okay if you're looking for something quick and fun, but if you really want to learn about something, a place like Mahalo will get the job done.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 03, 2009 06:27 AM
While more 'democratic' than many references (and extremely useful as a starting point for research, as others have explained very well), wikipedia is not that great at including all perspectives. Bad information is a problem, but aware readers can see the information and judge for themselves. The big problem with wikipedia is that it's too easy to delete comments you don't like, or to get rid of information that is still in the process of being developed. Readers can't judge for themselves whether this deleted material is bad because someone else decided it wasn't bland enough (or was too bland) to be included. For an especially ironic example, see the recent scuffle over Deletionpedia.
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- shanijo, November 14, 2009 11:18 PM
- titilei, November 14, 2009 10:46 PM
- meaaa, November 14, 2009 10:41 PM
- igorbuhovec, November 14, 2009 10:41 PM
- simbali, November 14, 2009 10:30 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
