Is wikipedia crap

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.

Comments (0)| Related (3) |

Print this article


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.

You say: "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)."

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.

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!
Wikipedia Sucks!

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

wikipedia or is not SHIT. I have a proof: it does not smell.

Ask the many frustrated editors who try to give a sense to their lives by expressing a delusional form of power trying to understand what other are writing. Most of them become editor because all their pieces were rejected by other frustrated people and they feel the necessity to join the company.

It it were edited by trolls, certainly the general IQ expressed would be higher than homer.



Bioteams Books Reviews

Self managed teams 101

Self managed teams 101

Grass Roots Management shows you how to grow initiative and responsibility in all your people. It might not appeal to purists, but using the narrative of a business based on a garden open to the public the author gives a very simple, accessible and readable account of 'self-managed teams'.

Buy it now from:


continue reading

Click here to check all Bioteams book reviews

Ken's LinkedIn Profile

Follow Ken's Blogs

NASA Widget2_160x40.jpg


Featured Categories

Trending Topics

agility analytics ants autopoiesis bees biomimicry bioteaming bioteams change management collaboration Collaboration collective intelligence community complex systems dashboards digital dashboards ecosystems excel experiential learning flock games high-performing teams HPT innovation leadership learning meetings mobile phones organizational teams penguins pheromones self-managed teams serious games simulators social media Social Networks social networks social software swarm swarm intelligence swarmteams teams teamwork The Networked Enterprise tit for tat VEN videos virtual communities virtual enterprise virtual enterprise networks virtual teams visualization web2.0 wisdom of crowds

Click for more...

Featured Article

Team joining hands

The secret DNA of high-performing virtual teams

Bioteaming – the secret to high-performing, self-organising, virtually networked teams... more

Locations of visitors to this page

Bioteams iphone app
Bioteams android app


Bioteams Lite


Latest Full Articles

Bioteams Assessor - Instantly check how good your team is?
BioScore Calculator – Instantly see if you need Bioteams
Discover Bioteams principles Yourself via Action Learning

Bioteams Manifesto

Communities and Networks Connection

Bioteams Ice-Breaker Zone

Only Fools and Horses Video Clip Funny Team Collaboration Video Dilbert Mission Statement Generator Ali G Video Funny Red Dwarf Video  FatherTed  Pixar

News Feed

Sign up for RSS   RSS Feed Subscription
        (What's RSS?)

10 Most popular posts

Recent posts


Download Browsealoud