![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
At 20:12, 25 May 2018, User:Netoholic undid revision 842936880 by User:JzG, explaining in his edit summary "Rvt WP:COI - editor removing this item is mentioned by name within it." Seven minutes later User:Ronz undid revision 842951657 by Netoholic, explaining "per NOT, IAR - poor research is of little use out of context." I request discussion of this issue. In particular, I ask Ronz to demonstrate how WP:NOT (What Wikipedia is not) and WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules) apply here, and equally important, how he determined that Brian Martin's paper "Persistent bias on Wikipedia: methods and responses," published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Social Science Computer Review (2017), constitutes poor research. KalHolmann ( talk) 20:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Generally, Further reading sections are a main target of spammers and the like (covered in many sections of NOT, but I think WP:SOAP is especially relevant in this situation). Further reading sections have little or no contribution to the encyclopedic value of an article, hence IAR. Martin wrote the article with a clear conflict of interest, and it is a case study of the editing of a single Wikipedia article, the one for Martin. That's incredibly poor research.
Specifically, poor research is of little use out of context
: Adding an individual study, and a very poor one at that, is almost never appropriate in a Further reading section because it has no context. --
Ronz (
talk)
22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological bias on Wikipedia. This article has been mentioned there as highly-related, so if you're inclined, please comment. -- Netoholic @ 05:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
We have a sub-section called Liberal bias. That's a bad title. "Liberal" means many different things around the world. In my country, Australia, the main conservative party is the Liberal Party. So, that title is perhaps a sign of the (American or conservative?) bias of this article. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
At the bottom of this page, "Reliability of Wikipedia", where people go to find out just how reliable we are (don't look at me), readers were invited to go to a series of articles from our projects. These pages have interesting names like America's Top Newspapers Use Wikipedia, Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Credibility, and External peer review/Nature December 2005.
When one of them grabs their interest they click, travel in time or space or however these pages get from somewhere to right-in-front-of-you, and when they get there they find incomplete, badly edited, woefully inadequate historical dioramas. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and the mule they rode in on. Of all the articles for these links to be on. Luckily nobody gets down to the bottom of the page (except maybe readers and journalists who want to report on how professional, ah, I mean, reliable, Wikipedia is).
So I moved those links to the bottom four from - believe it or don't - the top four. I'd suggest that these historical pages be opened up again, good editors descend on them like ants, and make them sparkle. I'm not heading up this thing, I just happened to be on an italics run and came across them, like finding fool's gold where I expected the true gold vein to be. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Consider changing
"An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a [[Nottingham University]] Business School lecturer in Information Systems" to "An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a [[University of Nottingham]] Business School lecturer in Information Systems" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.207.81 ( talk) 05:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
While there is a lot of criticism about hoaxes, Wikipedia is also lately used by Google and Youtube for its ability and reputation to curb hoaxes (with Wikipedia's community's ability to quickly remove them being praised). Potential source:
— Paleo Neonate – 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the studies mentionned in the comparative studies section are not comparative (i.e., they don't evaluate wikipedia compared to other encyclopedias). MonsieurD ( talk) 00:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
"A 2012 study co-authored by Shane Greenstein examined a decade of Wikipedia articles on United States politics and found that the more contributors there were to a given article, the more neutral it tended to be" It should also be noted that results from that same study show that in almost all cases Wikipedia articles are initially left-leaning and become neutral after the acummulation of edits. 190.18.10.90 ( talk) 12:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
My friend, we've got to get away from this simplistic, misleading and false left-right narrative. I urge you to stop using these words, including the words 'conservative' and 'liberal.' The problem is that our Constitution has been betrayed by billionaires, who control Western governments, and the means by which they do it have already been explained by Prof Lessig of Harvard and Prof Gilens of Princeton, among others. This has nothing to do with 'left or right.' It has to do with the corruption of our government officials, as shown in the recent Chatham University study showing that the greatest fear of Americans is corrupt American politicians. So when you find yourself saying 'left' or 'right,' bite your tongue. Remember that most people are good, and we will prevail. But we won't until we get money out of government and restructure our economy away from those whom Nobel Laureate Bod Dylan called the 'Masters of War.' Maybe reaching out to Holy Russia and the Middle Kingdom of China might be the best way, or indeed the only way of saving this human race of ours that the psychopaths in power seem determined to lead over the cliff like the lemmings they themselves are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.139.74.39 ( talk) 05:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Citation 25 is broken. Right now it points to http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html. I visited https://s23.org/wikistats/ and clicked on a link that lead me to https://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php, which I believe is the same content as the original citation. The difference between the old and new is the ".php" at the end. I would edit this myself, but I am not autoconfirmed at this time. JRubsWell ( talk) 15:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Our nation is turned to something we didn't want. We can't demonstrate what's happening in our world. Our world has changed. Anyone of u wanna help but don't know how. Do what your heart tells you. You're you. Just don't compare yourself with others rather compare yourself With yourself. They wanna compete with you but they cannot. Stay true to yourself and always fear stronger than love. Precious tsoete ( talk) 12:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm a 13 year veteran editor on here and can't believe how naive you all are. I have made numerous good faith edits over the last year that are 100% true but they have been removed and I've been threatened with a ban because of various reasons. But my housemate who is a deliberate vandal (as much as I ask him not to) can continue to ruin this project as you are too stubborn to make it a pre-requisite to register. Face it, this project we all love is shot and a joke :-( Cls14 ( talk) 22:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Per reason explained at Talk:Warsaw_concentration_camp#Conspiracy_theory_presented_as_fact_on_Wikipedia as well as at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Dealing_with_racism_on_Wikipedia, this is not a good addition. In particular, concerns over WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEVENT, WP:BLP, WP:OUTING, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations all suggest caution at the very least, and together make it a pretty bad idea to link to this in our article space.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Pick up by outlets in several countries, comments by six RS - that's not WP:UNDUE nor WP:FRINGE. François Robere ( talk) 09:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely bogus arguments. WP:BLP does not apply to dead people. Only certain aspect apply for the recently deceased. The editor who created the hoax has been deceased for close to two years. WP:BLP hence does not apply. We really need to drop the WP:OUTING argument, since the editor self-outed. Banana Republic ( talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
In August 2019, a hoax was removed from the article Warsaw concentration camp. The article was first drafted in August 2004 by Krzysztof Machocki which presented as fact a conspiracy theory that the camp contained gas chambers in which 200,000 non-Jews perished. Machocki was a well-known Wikipedia editor who also served as the spokesperson for the Polish branch of Wikimedia; he died before the hoax was corrected. That the hoax had persisted for around 15 years led to the label "Wikipedia’s longest-standing hoax" being applied.
starship .paint ( talk) 03:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Reliability of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
A study in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' said that in 2005
to
A study in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' concluded that in 2005
82.14.227.91 (
talk)
03:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
But surely drawing a conclusion is the purpose of any study, else why bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.227.91 ( talk) 13:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page is to suggest substantive improvements to the article. It is not a forum to discuss the topic of the article. I'm closing this discussion per WP:TPNO. Marianna251 TALK 20:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The overwhelming bias within articles relating to America, sport and, especially both, also reflect in the Reliability of Wikipedia. Krzyzewskiville is a typical example, such an entry would not be noteworthy as a separate article from a lesser-known university in any other country. It only exists because of the direct link between the habitat of said university, the attitudes of its country's male inhabitants towards sport (which happens to be the real phenomenon here, not the 'grasp' used within this article to describe itself), and the stats concerning who edits this shit, both nationality and gender (84%-91% are male). Another factor influencing the Reliability of Wikipedia rests within certain other stats. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, less than a fifth of editors stay longer than 100 edits. It's most prolific users are older, have the most user rights, essentially unchecked, and from direct experience, this number includes the 'petty-minded', the 'meanspirited', and, most disturbingly, the persistent 'bullies'. Mostly towards the new editors that occ<asionally "slip up", in essence, for not knowing as much about the site's archaic, heavily code biased implementation and rule sets, and the cold depths of its cliquish lifedraining inner sanctum.
82.14.227.91 ( talk) 17:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for making that incredibly relevant distinction. I think it is always wise to value the opinion of a far less random person on the internet than oneself. 82.14.227.91 ( talk) 09:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC) (I am a random person on the internet with a computer and am no way an expert in any field) In the Encyclopedia Britannica when I grew up, it told stories of how the American Indians and the settlers were great friends, taking care of each other. That theme was duplicated in the textbooks of our nation's schools. We now know that this "fact" is only partially true and that there are many instances that have come to light that the Indians and the settlers slaughtered each other by the thousands. This is just one example of how encyclopedias are changed over time. They are written and maintained by people. People are easily influenced by current thinking and (especially) religious beliefs. History books have been rewritten, not because history changed, but because new information has come to light. Wikipedia should not be held to a higher standard. However, I do feel that a person should be able to contact the foundation to correct “facts” as they have supporting documentation. Tinner2002 ( talk) 10:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Not covered in the article is chronological citation bias (this includes citations, references, quotations, etc.). This is an issue that exists across all of Wikipedia, and therefore worth mentioning on this 'Talk Page'.
In this context, 'chronological' should be understood to refer to the recent-ness* of whatever source the article's writer/editor considers citation-worthy.
While it is acknowledged that "new thinking" can legitimately supersede "old thinking" (e.g. Topic: Feathered Dinosaurs) it is highly unlikely that literally *all* historically "old" thinking, by definition, is incorrect and not worthy of citation (e.g. Topic: Mathematics).
Chronological reference bias is best demonstrated in Wikipedia articles where the article's topic happens to have been the subject of a substantial critical academic corpus prior to the popularisation of the internet.
A salient example is Shakespeare (Author). Critical analysis of Shakespeare spans, literally, centuries. The "Shakespeare Industry" (in academia) and the associated topic of "Bardolatry" testifies to this, since at least the time of Voltaire.
And yet the Wikipedia page on Shakespeare contains (as of FEB-2020) some 280 references of which more than 50% are cited as 21st-Century sources.
Wikipedia's chronological citation "bubble" exists widely elsewhere on the site and Shakespeare is chosen here merely as an easily-testable example, with a well-known background of secondary opinions. A "Bubble Test" can no doubt be constructed to demonstrate this, throughout the site.
[*] As a corollary, Wikipedia appears to feature a preponderance of citations that are hyperlink-able (i.e. they are already online). Online journal articles, web news stories, web sites, etc. are more easily verified (and cited) than those that are not. Many reputable academic journal articles are still either offline or are pay-walled. And copyright-protected and still-in-print academic text books, are by definition, less linkable. Thus, in defence of those Wikipedia editors who choose to cite recent works in preference to older works, it it likely that for reasons of practical purpose (rather than conscious bias), recentness and hyperlinkability are simply bedfellows.
Given this is a 'talk page', I should doubtless cite an action required. Other than updating the article on Wikipedia's Reliabilty, I here propose nothing more.
However, if you (the reader of my text), ever edit or write a topic that has already been discussed ad nauseum prior to the internet – maybe try to include some of the original thought.
We are already "standing on the shoulders of giants" (Newton, et al.). Where appropriate, try to give the Giants slightly more citations; and the 'Shoulders' slightly less so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.109.25 ( talk) 01:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia bias. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes ( talk / cont) 18:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Larry Sanger wrote on wiki bias here ( https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/). Worthwhile adding this link to further reading or external links?? -- 1.152.111.77 ( talk) 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This article and its linked study have some really good data on geographic bias in Wikipedia:
I did not find any references to that study/article, or any equivalent documentation of the bias it describes, while skimming this article.
Fixing that bias across all of Wikipedia would be hard, but it could theoretically be mitigated a lot just by including data about it somewhere on Wikipedia itself.
I'm going to mention this on the talk pages for Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedia too.
69.172.176.96 ( talk) 20:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This article would benefit from more discussion of paid editing scandals, and a heavier focus systemic bias and restricted demographics. The latter exacerbated by the prediliction of a small number of editors for removing and restricting others. What are the consequences of ever decreasing circles in allowable edits, and who best to go to when you wish to assess this impact? 2A00:23C4:1591:4C00:5070:E740:6327:CE12 ( talk) 18:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It was deleted in Russian Wikipedia (instead we have ru:Миф о Джебраилове = The myth of Jebrailov). Descriptions of the heroic deeds differ from each other so much that it is impossible to write a single story based on them. This is the result of state propaganda, I think. I think also it can be added here with a short description. · Carn· !? 09:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliability of Wiki would be greater if some sciences wouldn't be underestimated by some "Wiki masters" who "know better" than true specialists in their disciplines. This is a very case of mineralogical data and Wiki sites. I've tried to correct numerous errors in such data, which were completely misunderstood exactly due to underestimation of mineralogy by a/some chemists (or "chemists"). I assume Wiki is constituted to rather omit and crush such mind blockaced ad narrow-minded way of thinking. Unfortunately, I've encountered numerous cases where ego (even though I clearly confirm my state and sources of mineralogical knowledge at my Wiki site) won over truth. As a result, numerous errors and antediluvian, wrong nomenclature is still in Wiki. As such, it is and will be repeated and copied into other sources of, wrong, information - as soon as some Wiki rules are not changed. Eudialytos ( talk) 11:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I have also noticed this as an issue with the accessibility of wikipedians as a community. Wikipedia, while an encyclopedia, undermines active and open participation by expecting every scientist or expert who was trained in technical writing to also possess a degree in composition. It leads to certain topics being gatekept by individuals in a field or incredibly terse incomprehensible jargon that's been syntaxed correctly. It is not uncommon for my fellow mathematicians to be frustrated at best with the presentation on this website. For example, the topic of Magmas doesn't come up in most basic abstract algebra courses as a mathematical structure and most texts I've come across operate off the closure axiom. So whoever chose to be in charge of abstract algebra has saw fit to define all of abstract algebra with Magmas in mind and the definition of the totality axiom as opposed to the closure axiom. This is not an incorrect way to go about things, however, one can see how reading the page on Abstract Algebra first would make most entry level courses and texts from the past 100 years in Abstract Algebra incredibly confusing if you read a post-graduate proof of a different but equivalent axiom first. In short I feel this ego issue combined with moving forward without experts who aren't experts in english has made Wikipedia not a good source of generalized accesible information despite being an encyclopedia, and I really feel some of these pages need to be scrapped into Wikibooks and rewritten with the layman who knows basic algebra and calculus in mind. Most working scientists have access to paper databases, so every technical topic on wikipedia being written like a citable academic paper instead of relatively accessible to the layman when scientists don't cite wikipedia often seems like egotistical hope as opposed to genuinely "Editing the article to sound more rigorous solely to help people understand and not to show off one's intellect" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.195.140 ( talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I just created this new article.
I presented the fact-checking article as a subsection of this reliability article.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Reliability of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could I gain access to change the part that states about how you guys are not a reliable source. 237663 years ( talk) 21:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
So, if I add a source to an article on WP that is a company or individual promoting themselves, it will get removed immediately. But this article, where WP is shamelessly self-promoting itself, is perfectly acceptable? How can those two principles exist on the same site? Apeholder ( talk) 23:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@
DavidMCEddy: Could you explain: "alleged 'self-references' are to different articles, i.e., NOT self-references"
[11], please? The two links I previously removed and which you reverted were [[Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia|List of hoaxes on Wikipedia]]
and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source|Wikipedia is not a reliable source]]
. These two pages aren't
articles, they are
project pages, and they are definitely
self-references, as they link from the article namespace to the project namespace. --
Bsherr (
talk)
19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
This article Jang Ju-won is up for deletion, and it is suggested it may be a hoax. It has lasted 16 years. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Reliability of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The grammar and word structure is wrong 125.209.131.57 ( talk) 09:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Is this article only about the reliability of the English Wikipedia?
Some other language editions of Wikipedia have been found to be less reliable than the English Wikipedia, but this article doesn't mention them. Jarble ( talk) 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Makes a vague wave to "critics" which, looking at the sources, are actually Larry Sanger and Andrew Schlafly. Where is the independent coverage that explains how this negatively affects the reliability of Wikipedia? This is not criticism of Wikipedia or ideology of Wikipedia. Larry saying that we're not neutral because we don't give fringe theories a false balance isn't an argument that Wikipedia is unreliable. Schlafly saying that Wikipedia is biased because we side with science over fundamentalism is not sufficient to make a claim about Wikipedia's reliability (unless contextualized in terms of resilience, I guess?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
improve the coverage of civil rights movement-related topicsseems to be included as another reason why Wikipedia is unreliable due to bias. ...And
the Black Lives Matter project was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was "non-neutral advocacy."(!!) Someone nominated a page on Meta (not Wikipedia) for deletion, was overwhelmingly shut down, yet someone has included that in this article as evidence about Wikipedia's neutrality. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@ EMsmile: What do you know about the book, whose citation you removed from this article:
The title alone seems to make it relevant to me. My brief review of what I found about it on the Internet seems to confirm my belief that it is relevant. I'm restoring it, with a more complete citation to replace the incomplete one you deleted.
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Reliability of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May I change Nancy O'Neill to Nancy O'Neil. In this scenario, the last name has one 'l' not two. EmmaleeN30 ( talk) 16:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Nancy O’Neill, principal librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System, saysScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Just in case anyone feels like wasting time discussing this on yet another talk page: I agree with VM that f this is irrelevant, undue trivia. And as discussed earlier, this story empowers an indefinetly banned harasser, so per DFTT the fewer places it is in, the better. There are dozens of other examples found at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes that could be used here instead - and frankly, very few if any should be, since trying to discus reliability using such random examples is quite ORish. This page should be based on academic sources, not trivial news. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Levivich::
Volunteer Marek 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Edit-warring over this particular article, potentially adds to the claims that Wikipedia is un-reliable as a source of information. It's like arguing with each other, over whether or not we argue with each other. GoodDay ( talk) 20:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The text is longstanding and relevant. Veracity and misinformation on Wikipedia is clearly covered within this article, which the text refers to. That said, editors are free to gain a new consensus to remove it, may I suggest, from an RFC. starship .paint ( exalt) 07:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Btw, here’s the irony of the situation. People are justifying their reverts by saying that this is “longstanding” material, yet the story that’s being added is how an error remained in Wikipedia for long time and no one removed it because it was… “longstanding”. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
starship .paint ( exalt) 09:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The following portion “ What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in regards to the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We should not dismiss Wikipedia entirely (there are less inaccuracies than there are errors of omission) but rather begin to support it, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an education tool in tandem with critical thinking skills that will allow students to filter the information found on the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings.”
Reads like a quote or opinion from someone but is presented like a fact. According to whom? HusseinT2000 ( talk) 12:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
At 20:12, 25 May 2018, User:Netoholic undid revision 842936880 by User:JzG, explaining in his edit summary "Rvt WP:COI - editor removing this item is mentioned by name within it." Seven minutes later User:Ronz undid revision 842951657 by Netoholic, explaining "per NOT, IAR - poor research is of little use out of context." I request discussion of this issue. In particular, I ask Ronz to demonstrate how WP:NOT (What Wikipedia is not) and WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules) apply here, and equally important, how he determined that Brian Martin's paper "Persistent bias on Wikipedia: methods and responses," published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Social Science Computer Review (2017), constitutes poor research. KalHolmann ( talk) 20:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Generally, Further reading sections are a main target of spammers and the like (covered in many sections of NOT, but I think WP:SOAP is especially relevant in this situation). Further reading sections have little or no contribution to the encyclopedic value of an article, hence IAR. Martin wrote the article with a clear conflict of interest, and it is a case study of the editing of a single Wikipedia article, the one for Martin. That's incredibly poor research.
Specifically, poor research is of little use out of context
: Adding an individual study, and a very poor one at that, is almost never appropriate in a Further reading section because it has no context. --
Ronz (
talk)
22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological bias on Wikipedia. This article has been mentioned there as highly-related, so if you're inclined, please comment. -- Netoholic @ 05:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
We have a sub-section called Liberal bias. That's a bad title. "Liberal" means many different things around the world. In my country, Australia, the main conservative party is the Liberal Party. So, that title is perhaps a sign of the (American or conservative?) bias of this article. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
At the bottom of this page, "Reliability of Wikipedia", where people go to find out just how reliable we are (don't look at me), readers were invited to go to a series of articles from our projects. These pages have interesting names like America's Top Newspapers Use Wikipedia, Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Credibility, and External peer review/Nature December 2005.
When one of them grabs their interest they click, travel in time or space or however these pages get from somewhere to right-in-front-of-you, and when they get there they find incomplete, badly edited, woefully inadequate historical dioramas. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and the mule they rode in on. Of all the articles for these links to be on. Luckily nobody gets down to the bottom of the page (except maybe readers and journalists who want to report on how professional, ah, I mean, reliable, Wikipedia is).
So I moved those links to the bottom four from - believe it or don't - the top four. I'd suggest that these historical pages be opened up again, good editors descend on them like ants, and make them sparkle. I'm not heading up this thing, I just happened to be on an italics run and came across them, like finding fool's gold where I expected the true gold vein to be. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Consider changing
"An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a [[Nottingham University]] Business School lecturer in Information Systems" to "An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a [[University of Nottingham]] Business School lecturer in Information Systems" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.207.81 ( talk) 05:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
While there is a lot of criticism about hoaxes, Wikipedia is also lately used by Google and Youtube for its ability and reputation to curb hoaxes (with Wikipedia's community's ability to quickly remove them being praised). Potential source:
— Paleo Neonate – 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the studies mentionned in the comparative studies section are not comparative (i.e., they don't evaluate wikipedia compared to other encyclopedias). MonsieurD ( talk) 00:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
"A 2012 study co-authored by Shane Greenstein examined a decade of Wikipedia articles on United States politics and found that the more contributors there were to a given article, the more neutral it tended to be" It should also be noted that results from that same study show that in almost all cases Wikipedia articles are initially left-leaning and become neutral after the acummulation of edits. 190.18.10.90 ( talk) 12:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
My friend, we've got to get away from this simplistic, misleading and false left-right narrative. I urge you to stop using these words, including the words 'conservative' and 'liberal.' The problem is that our Constitution has been betrayed by billionaires, who control Western governments, and the means by which they do it have already been explained by Prof Lessig of Harvard and Prof Gilens of Princeton, among others. This has nothing to do with 'left or right.' It has to do with the corruption of our government officials, as shown in the recent Chatham University study showing that the greatest fear of Americans is corrupt American politicians. So when you find yourself saying 'left' or 'right,' bite your tongue. Remember that most people are good, and we will prevail. But we won't until we get money out of government and restructure our economy away from those whom Nobel Laureate Bod Dylan called the 'Masters of War.' Maybe reaching out to Holy Russia and the Middle Kingdom of China might be the best way, or indeed the only way of saving this human race of ours that the psychopaths in power seem determined to lead over the cliff like the lemmings they themselves are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.139.74.39 ( talk) 05:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Citation 25 is broken. Right now it points to http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html. I visited https://s23.org/wikistats/ and clicked on a link that lead me to https://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php, which I believe is the same content as the original citation. The difference between the old and new is the ".php" at the end. I would edit this myself, but I am not autoconfirmed at this time. JRubsWell ( talk) 15:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Our nation is turned to something we didn't want. We can't demonstrate what's happening in our world. Our world has changed. Anyone of u wanna help but don't know how. Do what your heart tells you. You're you. Just don't compare yourself with others rather compare yourself With yourself. They wanna compete with you but they cannot. Stay true to yourself and always fear stronger than love. Precious tsoete ( talk) 12:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm a 13 year veteran editor on here and can't believe how naive you all are. I have made numerous good faith edits over the last year that are 100% true but they have been removed and I've been threatened with a ban because of various reasons. But my housemate who is a deliberate vandal (as much as I ask him not to) can continue to ruin this project as you are too stubborn to make it a pre-requisite to register. Face it, this project we all love is shot and a joke :-( Cls14 ( talk) 22:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Per reason explained at Talk:Warsaw_concentration_camp#Conspiracy_theory_presented_as_fact_on_Wikipedia as well as at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Dealing_with_racism_on_Wikipedia, this is not a good addition. In particular, concerns over WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEVENT, WP:BLP, WP:OUTING, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations all suggest caution at the very least, and together make it a pretty bad idea to link to this in our article space.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Pick up by outlets in several countries, comments by six RS - that's not WP:UNDUE nor WP:FRINGE. François Robere ( talk) 09:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely bogus arguments. WP:BLP does not apply to dead people. Only certain aspect apply for the recently deceased. The editor who created the hoax has been deceased for close to two years. WP:BLP hence does not apply. We really need to drop the WP:OUTING argument, since the editor self-outed. Banana Republic ( talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
In August 2019, a hoax was removed from the article Warsaw concentration camp. The article was first drafted in August 2004 by Krzysztof Machocki which presented as fact a conspiracy theory that the camp contained gas chambers in which 200,000 non-Jews perished. Machocki was a well-known Wikipedia editor who also served as the spokesperson for the Polish branch of Wikimedia; he died before the hoax was corrected. That the hoax had persisted for around 15 years led to the label "Wikipedia’s longest-standing hoax" being applied.
starship .paint ( talk) 03:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Reliability of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
A study in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' said that in 2005
to
A study in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' concluded that in 2005
82.14.227.91 (
talk)
03:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
But surely drawing a conclusion is the purpose of any study, else why bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.227.91 ( talk) 13:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page is to suggest substantive improvements to the article. It is not a forum to discuss the topic of the article. I'm closing this discussion per WP:TPNO. Marianna251 TALK 20:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The overwhelming bias within articles relating to America, sport and, especially both, also reflect in the Reliability of Wikipedia. Krzyzewskiville is a typical example, such an entry would not be noteworthy as a separate article from a lesser-known university in any other country. It only exists because of the direct link between the habitat of said university, the attitudes of its country's male inhabitants towards sport (which happens to be the real phenomenon here, not the 'grasp' used within this article to describe itself), and the stats concerning who edits this shit, both nationality and gender (84%-91% are male). Another factor influencing the Reliability of Wikipedia rests within certain other stats. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, less than a fifth of editors stay longer than 100 edits. It's most prolific users are older, have the most user rights, essentially unchecked, and from direct experience, this number includes the 'petty-minded', the 'meanspirited', and, most disturbingly, the persistent 'bullies'. Mostly towards the new editors that occ<asionally "slip up", in essence, for not knowing as much about the site's archaic, heavily code biased implementation and rule sets, and the cold depths of its cliquish lifedraining inner sanctum.
82.14.227.91 ( talk) 17:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for making that incredibly relevant distinction. I think it is always wise to value the opinion of a far less random person on the internet than oneself. 82.14.227.91 ( talk) 09:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC) (I am a random person on the internet with a computer and am no way an expert in any field) In the Encyclopedia Britannica when I grew up, it told stories of how the American Indians and the settlers were great friends, taking care of each other. That theme was duplicated in the textbooks of our nation's schools. We now know that this "fact" is only partially true and that there are many instances that have come to light that the Indians and the settlers slaughtered each other by the thousands. This is just one example of how encyclopedias are changed over time. They are written and maintained by people. People are easily influenced by current thinking and (especially) religious beliefs. History books have been rewritten, not because history changed, but because new information has come to light. Wikipedia should not be held to a higher standard. However, I do feel that a person should be able to contact the foundation to correct “facts” as they have supporting documentation. Tinner2002 ( talk) 10:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Not covered in the article is chronological citation bias (this includes citations, references, quotations, etc.). This is an issue that exists across all of Wikipedia, and therefore worth mentioning on this 'Talk Page'.
In this context, 'chronological' should be understood to refer to the recent-ness* of whatever source the article's writer/editor considers citation-worthy.
While it is acknowledged that "new thinking" can legitimately supersede "old thinking" (e.g. Topic: Feathered Dinosaurs) it is highly unlikely that literally *all* historically "old" thinking, by definition, is incorrect and not worthy of citation (e.g. Topic: Mathematics).
Chronological reference bias is best demonstrated in Wikipedia articles where the article's topic happens to have been the subject of a substantial critical academic corpus prior to the popularisation of the internet.
A salient example is Shakespeare (Author). Critical analysis of Shakespeare spans, literally, centuries. The "Shakespeare Industry" (in academia) and the associated topic of "Bardolatry" testifies to this, since at least the time of Voltaire.
And yet the Wikipedia page on Shakespeare contains (as of FEB-2020) some 280 references of which more than 50% are cited as 21st-Century sources.
Wikipedia's chronological citation "bubble" exists widely elsewhere on the site and Shakespeare is chosen here merely as an easily-testable example, with a well-known background of secondary opinions. A "Bubble Test" can no doubt be constructed to demonstrate this, throughout the site.
[*] As a corollary, Wikipedia appears to feature a preponderance of citations that are hyperlink-able (i.e. they are already online). Online journal articles, web news stories, web sites, etc. are more easily verified (and cited) than those that are not. Many reputable academic journal articles are still either offline or are pay-walled. And copyright-protected and still-in-print academic text books, are by definition, less linkable. Thus, in defence of those Wikipedia editors who choose to cite recent works in preference to older works, it it likely that for reasons of practical purpose (rather than conscious bias), recentness and hyperlinkability are simply bedfellows.
Given this is a 'talk page', I should doubtless cite an action required. Other than updating the article on Wikipedia's Reliabilty, I here propose nothing more.
However, if you (the reader of my text), ever edit or write a topic that has already been discussed ad nauseum prior to the internet – maybe try to include some of the original thought.
We are already "standing on the shoulders of giants" (Newton, et al.). Where appropriate, try to give the Giants slightly more citations; and the 'Shoulders' slightly less so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.109.25 ( talk) 01:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia bias. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes ( talk / cont) 18:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Larry Sanger wrote on wiki bias here ( https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/). Worthwhile adding this link to further reading or external links?? -- 1.152.111.77 ( talk) 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This article and its linked study have some really good data on geographic bias in Wikipedia:
I did not find any references to that study/article, or any equivalent documentation of the bias it describes, while skimming this article.
Fixing that bias across all of Wikipedia would be hard, but it could theoretically be mitigated a lot just by including data about it somewhere on Wikipedia itself.
I'm going to mention this on the talk pages for Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedia too.
69.172.176.96 ( talk) 20:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This article would benefit from more discussion of paid editing scandals, and a heavier focus systemic bias and restricted demographics. The latter exacerbated by the prediliction of a small number of editors for removing and restricting others. What are the consequences of ever decreasing circles in allowable edits, and who best to go to when you wish to assess this impact? 2A00:23C4:1591:4C00:5070:E740:6327:CE12 ( talk) 18:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It was deleted in Russian Wikipedia (instead we have ru:Миф о Джебраилове = The myth of Jebrailov). Descriptions of the heroic deeds differ from each other so much that it is impossible to write a single story based on them. This is the result of state propaganda, I think. I think also it can be added here with a short description. · Carn· !? 09:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliability of Wiki would be greater if some sciences wouldn't be underestimated by some "Wiki masters" who "know better" than true specialists in their disciplines. This is a very case of mineralogical data and Wiki sites. I've tried to correct numerous errors in such data, which were completely misunderstood exactly due to underestimation of mineralogy by a/some chemists (or "chemists"). I assume Wiki is constituted to rather omit and crush such mind blockaced ad narrow-minded way of thinking. Unfortunately, I've encountered numerous cases where ego (even though I clearly confirm my state and sources of mineralogical knowledge at my Wiki site) won over truth. As a result, numerous errors and antediluvian, wrong nomenclature is still in Wiki. As such, it is and will be repeated and copied into other sources of, wrong, information - as soon as some Wiki rules are not changed. Eudialytos ( talk) 11:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I have also noticed this as an issue with the accessibility of wikipedians as a community. Wikipedia, while an encyclopedia, undermines active and open participation by expecting every scientist or expert who was trained in technical writing to also possess a degree in composition. It leads to certain topics being gatekept by individuals in a field or incredibly terse incomprehensible jargon that's been syntaxed correctly. It is not uncommon for my fellow mathematicians to be frustrated at best with the presentation on this website. For example, the topic of Magmas doesn't come up in most basic abstract algebra courses as a mathematical structure and most texts I've come across operate off the closure axiom. So whoever chose to be in charge of abstract algebra has saw fit to define all of abstract algebra with Magmas in mind and the definition of the totality axiom as opposed to the closure axiom. This is not an incorrect way to go about things, however, one can see how reading the page on Abstract Algebra first would make most entry level courses and texts from the past 100 years in Abstract Algebra incredibly confusing if you read a post-graduate proof of a different but equivalent axiom first. In short I feel this ego issue combined with moving forward without experts who aren't experts in english has made Wikipedia not a good source of generalized accesible information despite being an encyclopedia, and I really feel some of these pages need to be scrapped into Wikibooks and rewritten with the layman who knows basic algebra and calculus in mind. Most working scientists have access to paper databases, so every technical topic on wikipedia being written like a citable academic paper instead of relatively accessible to the layman when scientists don't cite wikipedia often seems like egotistical hope as opposed to genuinely "Editing the article to sound more rigorous solely to help people understand and not to show off one's intellect" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.195.140 ( talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I just created this new article.
I presented the fact-checking article as a subsection of this reliability article.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Reliability of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could I gain access to change the part that states about how you guys are not a reliable source. 237663 years ( talk) 21:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
So, if I add a source to an article on WP that is a company or individual promoting themselves, it will get removed immediately. But this article, where WP is shamelessly self-promoting itself, is perfectly acceptable? How can those two principles exist on the same site? Apeholder ( talk) 23:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@
DavidMCEddy: Could you explain: "alleged 'self-references' are to different articles, i.e., NOT self-references"
[11], please? The two links I previously removed and which you reverted were [[Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia|List of hoaxes on Wikipedia]]
and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source|Wikipedia is not a reliable source]]
. These two pages aren't
articles, they are
project pages, and they are definitely
self-references, as they link from the article namespace to the project namespace. --
Bsherr (
talk)
19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
This article Jang Ju-won is up for deletion, and it is suggested it may be a hoax. It has lasted 16 years. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Reliability of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The grammar and word structure is wrong 125.209.131.57 ( talk) 09:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Is this article only about the reliability of the English Wikipedia?
Some other language editions of Wikipedia have been found to be less reliable than the English Wikipedia, but this article doesn't mention them. Jarble ( talk) 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Makes a vague wave to "critics" which, looking at the sources, are actually Larry Sanger and Andrew Schlafly. Where is the independent coverage that explains how this negatively affects the reliability of Wikipedia? This is not criticism of Wikipedia or ideology of Wikipedia. Larry saying that we're not neutral because we don't give fringe theories a false balance isn't an argument that Wikipedia is unreliable. Schlafly saying that Wikipedia is biased because we side with science over fundamentalism is not sufficient to make a claim about Wikipedia's reliability (unless contextualized in terms of resilience, I guess?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
improve the coverage of civil rights movement-related topicsseems to be included as another reason why Wikipedia is unreliable due to bias. ...And
the Black Lives Matter project was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was "non-neutral advocacy."(!!) Someone nominated a page on Meta (not Wikipedia) for deletion, was overwhelmingly shut down, yet someone has included that in this article as evidence about Wikipedia's neutrality. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@ EMsmile: What do you know about the book, whose citation you removed from this article:
The title alone seems to make it relevant to me. My brief review of what I found about it on the Internet seems to confirm my belief that it is relevant. I'm restoring it, with a more complete citation to replace the incomplete one you deleted.
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Reliability of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May I change Nancy O'Neill to Nancy O'Neil. In this scenario, the last name has one 'l' not two. EmmaleeN30 ( talk) 16:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Nancy O’Neill, principal librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System, saysScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Just in case anyone feels like wasting time discussing this on yet another talk page: I agree with VM that f this is irrelevant, undue trivia. And as discussed earlier, this story empowers an indefinetly banned harasser, so per DFTT the fewer places it is in, the better. There are dozens of other examples found at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes that could be used here instead - and frankly, very few if any should be, since trying to discus reliability using such random examples is quite ORish. This page should be based on academic sources, not trivial news. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Levivich::
Volunteer Marek 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Edit-warring over this particular article, potentially adds to the claims that Wikipedia is un-reliable as a source of information. It's like arguing with each other, over whether or not we argue with each other. GoodDay ( talk) 20:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The text is longstanding and relevant. Veracity and misinformation on Wikipedia is clearly covered within this article, which the text refers to. That said, editors are free to gain a new consensus to remove it, may I suggest, from an RFC. starship .paint ( exalt) 07:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Btw, here’s the irony of the situation. People are justifying their reverts by saying that this is “longstanding” material, yet the story that’s being added is how an error remained in Wikipedia for long time and no one removed it because it was… “longstanding”. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
starship .paint ( exalt) 09:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The following portion “ What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in regards to the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We should not dismiss Wikipedia entirely (there are less inaccuracies than there are errors of omission) but rather begin to support it, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an education tool in tandem with critical thinking skills that will allow students to filter the information found on the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings.”
Reads like a quote or opinion from someone but is presented like a fact. According to whom? HusseinT2000 ( talk) 12:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)