Cia, Vatican, Fox News, Undercover Agents Alter Wikipedia

[Msterbeau]

I'm not how seriously we should take these specific instances... but it points to troubling issues with an information source like Wikipedia that relies on user input. Generally speaking, they "self-correct" because enough people care about the accuracy and balance of particular subjects that deliberate biased input gets tossed fairly quickly or the entries get locked down. Still... If you happen to see it at the wrong moment, you might get the wrong impression. Which just goes to show that you're best off using multiple sources to corroborate accuracy.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/bourne-wikimatu...ever-289853.php

[ttogreh]

Wikipedia... the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The people who don't want the bad press can try, but they'll fail. In fact, these morons just shot themselves in the foot, because now MORE people will look at their wiki entries than if they had done nothing...

[Scary Guy]

"You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact.

We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge." - Stephen Colbert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_culture about 25% of the way down.

[Msterbeau]

"You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact.

We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge." - Stephen Colbert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_culture about 25% of the way down.

[know_buddy_kares]

FUCK! THE CIA KNOW ABOUT OUR LIGHT SABERS!!!

[sass_in_the_pants]

Because the CIA, the Vatican, and Fox News have nothing better to do?

This is also why Wiki is NEVER acceptable as a source for anything. Ever. If you're looking up dumb shit, or just want a quick overview, sure, but no one would REALLY use a wiki entry for a paper or anything like that.

[Msterbeau]

Because the CIA, the Vatican, and Fox News have nothing better to do?

This is also why Wiki is NEVER acceptable as a source for anything. Ever. If you're looking up dumb shit, or just want a quick overview, sure, but no one would REALLY use a wiki entry for a paper or anything like that.

I heard a story on NPR about Wiki versus one of the established "real" encyclopedias. By and large.. it was just as accurate. The problem is with the ability for things to be screwed up for short periods of time.