Isn't it interesting how wikipedia is now a respected source?

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

The problem with Wikipedia, is they don't allow the person who the Wikipedia is about to edit the article about them if there is some discrepancies with the information.

I'm sure there's an easy way to bypass that rule. How would they even be able to tell who's editing the article? You make an account and create a username like let's say BatmanFan666. How would they know who the hell is behind that username?!

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Prowler

I'm sure there's an easy way to bypass that rule. How would they even be able to tell who's editing the article? You make an account and create a username like let's say BatmanFan666. How would they know who the hell is behind that username?!

What I meant was that Wikipedia doesn't allow self promotion, So if you were to write a wiki about yourself, That is frowned upon and would get deleted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32412121.

This is from the BBC article on Wikipedia.

Who writes the entries?
Anyone can - it's open to all and can be modified and edited by anyone. However, Wikipedia's administrators protect some pages from direct editing if they believe they are regularly subjected to "vandalism" - the addition of abusive language or falsehoods.

How easy is it to make up stuff about people?
Wikipedia has rules - lots of rules. One obvious one is not being dishonest. Another is avoiding opinion and sticking to verifiable facts. But it is possible to set up a user account with a pseudonymous username to allow you to edit anonymously. However, using anonymous accounts for blatant misrepresentation and puffery - known as sock puppetry - is often spotted and the offending content challenged or removed by other editors.

Don't people and companies use Wikipedia for self-promotion?
Blatant self-promotion is frowned upon by the community and viewed as a conflict of interest. Anyway, as you don't control the page, less flattering information may soon be added by others. But examples of Wikispam, as it's sometimes called, are "speedily deleted" according to the website.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

What I meant was that Wikipedia doesn't allow self promotion, So if you were to write a wiki about yourself, That is frowned upon and would get deleted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32412121.

This is from the BBC article on Wikipedia.

Who writes the entries?
Anyone can - it's open to all and can be modified and edited by anyone. However, Wikipedia's administrators protect some pages from direct editing if they believe they are regularly subjected to "vandalism" - the addition of abusive language or falsehoods.

How easy is it to make up stuff about people?
Wikipedia has rules - lots of rules. One obvious one is not being dishonest. Another is avoiding opinion and sticking to verifiable facts. But it is possible to set up a user account with a pseudonymous username to allow you to edit anonymously. However, using anonymous accounts for blatant misrepresentation and puffery - known as sock puppetry - is often spotted and the offending content challenged or removed by other editors.

Don't people and companies use Wikipedia for self-promotion?
Blatant self-promotion is frowned upon by the community and viewed as a conflict of interest. Anyway, as you don't control the page, less flattering information may soon be added by others. But examples of Wikispam, as it's sometimes called, are "speedily deleted" according to the website.

Still, what exactly would prevent a celebrity from creating a wiki article for themselves? It's not like wiki knows who the IP of the person making an article belongs to. Not to mention they can always create the article from a computer that's not theirs.

Unless they state in the article that they're the actual person themselves, Wikipedia isn't able to proove that's the actual person or company self-promoting itself. Even if the article is very flattering of them, it could simply be the work of a really dedicated fanboy instead.

[superstaff]

All I'll say is to never trust only Wikipedia, and look at other sources and information.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by superstaff

All I'll say is to never trust only Wikipedia, and look at other sources and information.

Yeah, I noticed it leans heavily into one political direction. Take a wild guess which.

[Prowler]

Oh yeah. Which is why I have zero doubts that companies and political organisations pay people to edit Wikipedia to push their agenda. They already do that on message boards and places like reddit. Why would they not do that on Wikipedia?

Hell, this place got flooded with plants when the first Bay Turtles movie came out. And it's not like a TMNT movie has any impact in the grand scheme of things politically and socially. So now imagine the lengths political organisations and parties will go at to spread their agendas.

[mrmaczaps]

But is it REALLY trusted? Lol.

[Prowler]

Cyber mentions being in HS when teachers told him about Wikipedia, but wasn't he born in poke 85? He'd have been in HS around 2000-2003... Wikipedia didn't exist back then did it? And if it did, it sure as hell wasn't as big as it is nowadays. I didn't know of Wikipedia until 2006.

Anyway, one of my university teachers told us once that it's fine to check out Wikipedia since quality has improved over the years, but you still cannot use it as a source.

But CyberCubed and sdp are basically saying that Wikipedia is some sort of credible bulletproof source in itself. That's a rather... "dangerous" way to look at it.

I've met people who work in pharmacy and medical fields, and they all said that the wiki articles related to their fields are full of errors. I'll take the word of actual pharmacists and doctors over whoever the hell writes wiki articles about Ebola and Valium, that's for sure.

But, scarily, from what I've heard, it seems like some young doctors nowadays use Wikipedia to look up symptoms of their patients. If I ever find myself in a doctor's office with the doctor browsing Wikipedia as I tell him my symptoms, I'm leaving that place immediately.

[MikeandRaph87]

I was finishing high school when Wikipedia became a thing. I was one of the early innovativors who showed AP teachers and college professors that Wikipedia while not a source itself can be quite useful. If one uses the citations within the article entry and you are able to access the valid website referenced then its a great source. Better than Yahoo! was and Google is. It is all about HOW IT is utilized. Copying and pasting snippets from an entry is cheap and knowing anyone can edit it proves it. I think of Wikipedia as a hub for resources opposed to an online encyclopedia.When I went back for an advanced degree two years ago I used Wikipedia in the same way when researching for cited responses and papers.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

I was finishing high school when Wikipedia became a thing. I was one of the early innovativors who showed AP teachers and college professors that Wikipedia while not a source itself can be quite useful. If one uses the citations within the article entry and you are able to access the valid website referenced then its a great source. Better than Yahoo! was and Google is. It is all about HOW IT is utilized. Copying and pasting snippets from an entry is cheap and knowing anyone can edit it proves it. I think of Wikipedia as a hub for resources opposed to an online encyclopedia.When I went back for an advanced degree two years ago I used Wikipedia in the same way when researching for cited responses and papers.

I haven't used Yahoo since 2003. That was the search engine I always used until I switched to Google in 2003. Yahoo used to me such a big company back in the early 2000s. A lot of people had yahoo emails even and there was a yahoo messenger as well.

I was in HS when Wikipedia started to become popular. So many kids of my generation got away with copy pasting stuff from Wikipedia in their PowerPoint presentations