• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Wikipedia - How do you get picked to edit?

jdevil

Distinguished Member
So does anyone bother to check what you've typed is correct or not?
Generally, Wikipedia is not deemed to be a credible source of information, since pretty much anyone can change it. However, Wikipedia pages do usually have a list of sources at the bottom, the numbers next to them being superscripts in the article.

The best I can tell you is that some Wiki articles are excellent; others are mediocre, and only long experience using non-online sources can help you distinguish between them.

One minor rule of thumb: the more obscure, scholarly, and difficult the subject, the more likely the Wiki site is to be reasonably trustworthy, since only knowledgeable people tend to create and contribute to these sites. Popular culture sites are to be avoided or, at least, regarded with skepticism.
 

CraigofScotland

Distinguished Member
Take it with a pinch of salt . . ive seen some engineering and business management theory in there, a little sketch . . to say the least.

Find info you need, just check out another source to back up what you just found.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
They tested this in PcPro a while ago - they edited four pages to see what happened. Three of them got fixed back within 24 hours - one was changing the birth date of the parent of a member of an obscure band :) The one that was missed was something to do with one of the moon landings - they were surprised as they thought that one would be hotly watched :)

Some pages are locked as they are too controversial to allow general public editing.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
I find wiki very useful as a collation of information on any given article.
However, as people have mentioned, you can not accept anything written as fact without further validation especially with contentious material or disputed information.

I tend to validate the info I need then if it all parses okay, use the specific wiki pages as a convienient source rather than having to construct my own repository. I've found plenty of errors though and had to disregard some entries and edited a few myself to make corrections.

Facts about specific people are the worst and most suciptable to people purposefully changing and posting false information.
Celebrities, politicians etc usually fall foul of these.

Generic info on say Greek Philosophers, Nobel Prize lists or Amazonian insects are usually fine and a great reference starting point which is what I usually look to wiki for. The starting point like a childrens atlas or encyclopedia that gives you the basic guist so if you find something interesting you can research it more fully and accurately elsewhere.

Wiki is in general, considerably more accurate than many sources out there, especially in the media, so whilst keeping an open mind and mild skeptiscism, I would not dismiss it all out of hand due to specific inaccuracies, I sugguest you check how many editions and re edits occur on well know and respected journals, encyclopedias and dictionaries.
 
Last edited:

Ed Selley

Hi-Fi Editor
So does anyone bother to check what you've typed is correct or not?

Wikipedia has moderators who (in much the same way as here) are given a block to look after. Alterations to an article in the block will be flagged up for them to check.

I'm delighted to say that my 15 or so article edits remain.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
You can also check the rating of any wiki page or if it is a featured article (highly accurate and moderated).

Example Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a featured article, and much to the chargrin of some members of the site who neither like dogmatic atheists nor the posting of wiki pages, this particular article is highly rated for accuracy and can be considered a trusted source.

Tip: the discussions page, edits and comments are good to check and see how much traffic they recieve. The more edits and converstation the better usually, unless it's a case of some political figure having spam edits done to hint at the fact that they may have interfered with a labrador a la Keith Lard stylee.
 
Last edited:

Sonic67

Banned
:rotfl: I know what they are. A little defensive?
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
Here we go again...

:facepalm:


:)

shut it you ! :p

I haven't said anything that is not demonstratable correct and reasonable 'yet'.

Posting a link about historical inaccuracy along side a wiki article that may or may not be an accurate article on a film makes no real sense as an argument against wiki. It's like declaring wiki is wrong because it has a perfectly accurate page on The Bridge on the River Kwai film then declaring it wrong because the film was in itself inaccurate.

Tell me I am wrong.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 8K TV dead? Philips OLED+907, Pioneer LX505 AVR plus B&W 700 S3 Reviews & Visit + AV/HiFi News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom