Changes

Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 00:36, April 14, 2013

259 bytes added , 00:36, April 14, 2013

Consolidated "Quality" section with "Unreliability" section, and "Liberal Bias" with "Leftist Bias"; added research on unreliability

Line 14: Line 14:

{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}

Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled "Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue," [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>

+

''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''

+

—Douglas Adams

+

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain "inaccuracies", leading hte "Daily Mail" to dub it "Iffy-pedia".<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html</ref> But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

+

According to the style manual for the [[Associated Press]], the largest news agency in the United States, Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, but the hyperlinks in articles may be helpful as sources.

+

Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].

Line 25: Line 33:

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

+

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

+

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in the proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

+

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

+

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262</ref>

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:

Line 77: Line 93:

For the past few years, Wikipedia has added banners begging for money from its viewers. The site claims to be in need of more funding, but in fact it is "awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating."<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?], 20 December 2012</ref>

−

~~==Quality==~~

−

''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''

−

~~—Douglas Adams~~

−

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

−

According to the style manual for the [[Associated Press]], the largest news agency in the United States, Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, but the hyperlinks in articles may be helpful as sources.

−

~~==[[Liberal bias]]==~~

−

~~''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]~~

−

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

−

~~This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:~~

−

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262</ref>

==Scandals and decline==

Yeoberry

37

edits