Is wikipedia crap
Stumble It!No but some of it is of dubious quality
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales created a stir when he admitted online that the entries for Bill Gates and Jane Fonda were “a horrific embarrassment” and “nearly unreadable crap”.
Jimmy made the comments in response to criticisms that wikipedia " is useful to consult to get a quick gloss on a subject but at a factual level it's unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper."
Having had a look at both the guilty entries on wikipedia, the subjects of which I confess I am no expert on, it is hard to see what all the fuss is about (unless they have been very recently rewritten).
What is immediately obvious is that they are light on 'hard chronological fact' and heavy on comment/popular knowledge which is already in the public domain.
However if you compare the entries with other web-based encyclopedias they don't actually look too bad.
This highlights a critical point about collaboration, which often is lost in all the hype about its importance: collaboration can just as easily produce weak products as strong ones.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
Add to my favourites
Comments
wikipedia is unreliable, it gives false information, if you were to go on it and type diner dash, it will say the ds version was released in jan 2006, it's not out untill 2007, it also says ty the tasmanian tiger 3 was released in october 2005. it's not out yeat and its 2006. Not only that but they managed to put that the third series of catherine tate would air, what acthually happened was a repeat of the second series, no t.v. guide, no sky information thing or internets on the box, even mentioned a third series for that date.
Posted by: andrew | August 28, 2006 12:39 PM
You say: "Having had a look at both the guilty entries on wikipedia,
**THE SUBJECTS OF WHICH I CONFESS I AM NO EXPERT ON**,
the subjects of which I confess I am no expert on, it is hard to see what all the fuss is about (unless they have been very recently rewritten)."
Okay, let's try to jumpstart your brain. You confess that you don't know what you're talking about, then you say "I don't know what all the fuss is about". Lay off the hookah pipe, Ken.
For those that MAKE THEMSELVES experts... by READING TONNES OF BOOKS on a subject, the Wikipedia is shit. Absolute shit. It's the very problem of "anybody being able to edit" that makes it shit.
On popular subjects, it's okay. There are a zillion editors on a vigil for idiotic trolls. For subjects that are more obscure (like many history subjects), forget it. The trolls outnumber valuable contributors which then has a snowball effect because the valuable contributors throw up their hands and leave it to the trolls to destroy.
Still don't know what the fuss is about? Then, you'll probably never raise that IQ level high enough to get it.
Posted by: Wikihater | September 24, 2006 10:27 PM
Wikipedia is a total crap. If an admin hates a software product, he tries to lame the article with crap like: disputes fair-use and etc.
Also you try to help and the kind sucker called yamla tells you "stop you vandal" or "you will be blocked" .
Everything there is vandalism! Just eveything, without the admin's contribs!
It just SUUUUUUUUCKS!
Wikipedia Sucks!
WikiPedofilia!
Posted by: Hure | October 21, 2006 1:10 PM
I would have to agree that WikiPedia is a very unreliable source of Information for many topics and areas. For some scientific sections the material presented is sound and accurate. However as we move into the arts and religion, culture and philosophies the material takes on more opinion rather than fact. Opnions and popular theories are presented rather than real fact and knowledge from decent sources.
Because the site is open to everyone - anyone can basically post up whatever they like - this leads to huge inaccuracy and as the founder of WikiPedia put it - a 'horrifc embarassment'.
If you want an encyclopedia - DO NOT GO TO WIKIPEDIA - IT IS NOT RELIABLE!!!
Posted by: Sandeep Kaur | December 7, 2006 4:06 PM
One of the hilarious aspects of Wikipedia is that editors often remove scholarly external links while leaving the worthless links. Wikipedia is ludricrous in the extreme, the domain of functional illiterates.
Posted by: J.S.Bernstein | October 7, 2007 9:33 AM
Here is an example of Wikipedia’s “scholarship”. Editor MarnetteD’s poor writing skills bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Errors on his/her OWN PERSONAL PAGE on Wikipedia: (1) “Mar 25 2005″. Is this the way to write a date? In what language? Isn’t there a comma? (2) “The last decade has seen an outpouring of interest in, and publications about Oscar and the people in his life, I have read and seen most of it.” A RUN-ON SENTENCE. Don’t we learn about run-on sentences in grade school? (3) “priviledged” WHAT WORD IS THIS? AND IN WHAT LANGUAGE? One can only conclude that MarnetteD is illiterate, but “This user has made over 15,000 contributions to Wikipedia.” A priceless, perfect advertisement for what is wrong with Wikipedia.
Posted by: Roger Thornhill | April 9, 2008 7:06 PM
I used to believe in wikipedia and its "spirit." But you know what, wikipedia really is shit. They say they're not a democracy, damn right, because they're 5000 times worse than China in censoring information, featuring shitty articles, and deleting articles people actually use. The admins don't give a shit about "concensus" - they think that a hidden message on a hidden page is enough to reach a concensus. And the anal assholes who just insist on reverting every edit you make because it's not sourced. Guess what, 80% of the sources on wikipedia on complete duds. Wikipedia has turned yet another heartless bureaucracy, grinding away for donations and becoming less and less useful every day. Wikipedia sucks and I'm never wasting my time on it again.
Posted by: jerry | May 23, 2008 5:43 AM
Bioteams Books Reviews
Complex adaptive systems and virtual team collaboration
Leading complexity thinkers apply biological principles to enterprises: The Biology of Business is a set of essays by ten researchers and practitioners in Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS).
Buy it now from:
Amazon.Com
Amazon.Co.UK
