Good points there, thanks for the comment!

Yes, it is important to consider the source of you information. The term “follow the money” comes to mind here.

Your points on this topic are right on!

In some cases the facts may be correct, but the context is left out or skewed to one side. In other cases the facts themselves should be looked at with a grain of salt. Just because they are sited by a source you think is credible doesn’t really mean they are credible.

An interesting entry to look at is Global Warming. There is a lot of political and monetary impact to the topic. The University researchers are funded by governments that would benefit from the taxation that is pushed in the name of Global Warming. If the university researches want more money, don’t you think they will skew their results in the favor of the Government outcome? Then the research is sited as truth.

At the same time, the whole article acts like it is fact. What is funny to me though is when they mention the following: “Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change”

That is what you were saying about people agreeing to facts on Wikipedia. Now they are applying it to science. Consensus isn’t science.

It would be interesting to see the distribution of the political views of the editors of articles. Every editor has some kind of motivation to edit an article. Sometimes the motivation helps to bring out the facts. But, sometimes it is marketing, or political, or propaganda.

Exactly!

The entries for several topics in my area of specialization are terrible. People, including me, have tried over the years to improve them, but one or two dedicated editors keep reversing the changes, even when presented with citations and links from credible sources that the original facts/entries are wrong. Eventually, those who have valid facts get tired of the fight. So those entries stand, wrongness and all.

My guess is that the more niche the topic, the less likely it is correct, especially where money and marketing is involved.

I think wikis work best in a high-trust, common goal environment. The Internet, as a whole, isn’t that space.

Yet I use Wikipedia almost daily. I use it as a guide to finding information, but I still attempt to verify data that I need to act upon. My guess, is, though, that the vast majority of Internet users have no idea that something in a post could be incorrect.

Gloria,

Thank you for your comment and thank you for you dedication to helping maintain Wikipedia as a viable reference resource.

I don’t believe we are that far off in our opinions. I understand that you can’t trust any resource. I didn’t say that Britannica was better. What I was trying to say is that each individual needs to decide for themselves what the truth is about something.

Wikipedia is a good starting point, for all the reasons you mentioned.

Thanks again.

Aaron,

Well, the easy thing to do here is to tell you that we never landed on the moon, and that the entire article is untrue. I could pick out five similar events and tell you they aren’t true. I could even cite books and blog posts as evidence if you wish. Moon landings, Kennedy assignation, 9-1-1, etc. The list of events and disputed facts are endless.

That’s not the point here.

The point is that when you want to know the truth you have to seek it out for yourself. You can’t simply rely on information that others have given you as the only possible truth.

Let’s look at John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. Were you aware that at his trial John Brown stated that he never intended to incite a revolt? (read first paragraph here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/johnbrown/brownaddress.html)

That testimony isn’t mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on the Harper’s Ferry raid.

If all I did was read the Wikipedia article about the raid then I may think John Brown the equivalent of a terrorist today. Was he? Certainly he was an abolitionist, but is the entry for the raid on Harper’s Ferry enough information for me to decide?

Perhaps you feel that it is, and that’s your right.

But chances are there are lots of details missing. The event happened. So did the ’75 Cup finals. We know the people involved in both events. Yet there is still a lot of context missing. What was John Brown doing there? Why did the Sabres get beat in ’75?

Next week that entry for Harper’s Ferry may have the word ‘abolitionist’ removed and simply replaced with ‘terrorist’. Even if that change lasts for a few hours, is that right? The person that gets to press “save” on that entry last gets to decide what we are to believe.

I prefer to use Wikipedia as a starting point, nothing more. I recognize that the folks that work behind the scenes for Wikipedia have good intentions, but that doesn’t mean they always have all the correct facts.

It’s up to me to decide what I believe to be true.