Why Wikipedia Doesn’t Work

Posted on April 4, 2007 by Scott Jennings| 39 Comments

…because if you go just by Wikipedia, Lyndon LaRouche is a serious politician.

This entry was posted in Stupidity, Tyrants, _. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Bigwig

    If you have such a big problem with his entry, edit it. Thats the point of wikipedia.

  • http://forge.ironrealms.com Matt Mihaly

    I’m unsure what the problem is with his entry. I’m only familiar with the man by name and for the fact that he’s run for the Democratic nomination so many times.

    Reading his entry, I certainly do not come across with the impression that he is or ever was a serious politician. Multiple mentions of his prison time, mentions that he’s viewed as a conspiracy theorist and so on are not exactly descriptions that most people would associate with “serious politician” I think.

  • http://blog.funtax.org funtax

    The “point” of the Wikipedia is not to let anybody who has a “big problem” with something edit that problem away. Quite to the contrary, it’s SUPPOSED to provide a means of developing accurate, details and well-documented encyclopedic entries on as many subjects as possible. That those entries can be edited for practically any reason at all is actually a serious issue in many ways (as Stephen Colbert so routinely loves to point out).

    I think Scott’s (quite valid) beef in this case may have something to do with the fact that LaRouche is such a quack that he simply doesn’t warrant the level of attention this entry provides. Forget other crazy felon cult leaders, his entry is longer and more positively-spun than the entries for most PRESIDENTS.

    It’s a perfect example of how the Wikipedia format can be easily and effectively exploited by any fanatical minority that happens to familiarize itself with the culture of Wikipedia editors. Once you’re aware of the rather predictable set of requirements and preferences of those editors, the actual quality or worthiness of your entry is rarely an issue.

    That said, I still use the Wikipedia for low-level hunch-checking and general trivia, but I’d never rely on it for anything even vaguely significant.

  • Jobrill

    Lyndon Larouche was right and he DIED FOR YOUR SINS!

    But seriously, what funtax said. I would never trust any report using Wikipedia for anything serious. Wikipedia is nice for general pop culture trivia and checking up on minor hunches, but I doubt I’d ever use it for anything in which accuracy of facts was essentual.

  • FNORD

    It’s articles on scientific and mathematical subjects are somewhat better, and tend to be cited well enough to trace down an ACTUAL source.

    But for less quantitative subjects, it’s not a good place to go for serious research.

  • http://cnn.com ubvman

    If you have such a big problem with his entry, edit it. Thats the point of wikipedia.

    Aye, its true. When in a restaurant, if I don’t like whats being served, its a good idea to go into the kitchen and take over from the chef. Ditto – airlines, law enforcement, banking… and writing encyclopedias!

    The biggest laugh of this “encylopedia by consensus” is that one of the central tenets it operates by is verifiability, not truth”. If you can find an external reference to cite – its OK! Truth does not come into it. I’m not joking.

  • Ironwood

    I’m reminded of the Cartoon of Skeletor altering He-Mans Wiki entry.

  • Freakazoid

    Lum, your blog is eating my awesome respose to your post! And I had such an ensightful comment, too.

  • perianwyr

    But for less quantitative subjects, it’s not a good place to go for serious research.

    Aaaaaah

    Please not to be doing serious research on Wikipedia

  • Boanerges

    I read somewhere (think it was Fox News) that most major colleges and some more savvy high schools have forbidden use of Wikipedia as a primary source.

    Wikipedia is a giant mixed bag. On the one hand it’s got some good entries about general interest stuff that no real encyclopedia would have (ie He-Man). On the other hand it’s open source truth. Fantastic for code, horrible for, well, everything else.

    For Ironwood

  • scottj

    Edits to Mr. LaRouche’s entry are reverted literally within seconds.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&action=history

    @Matt: LaRouche isn’t just a mildly wacky Harold Stassen, he’s a cult leader who teaches that the UK leads a secret plot to infiltrate America with demons. OK, points for originality, I’ll grant you this. Yet, according to Wikipedia, he is one of the foremost economists in America today, is responsible for SDI’s development, and was a serious contender for the 2004 Democratic nomination!

  • http://ambernight.org Amber

    I read somewhere (think it was Fox News) that most major colleges and some more savvy high schools have forbidden use of Wikipedia as a primary source.

    Wikipedia should never be used as a primary (or secondary) source, but not because it’s Wikipedia. It’s because it’s a compilation. Encyclopedias and other compilations are also invalid as primary sources in almost every curriculum.

  • Double_D

    Is the problem Wikipedia or the failure of humanity to docucument truth?

    We create language in order to exchange ideas between each other. For some reason we decided to garble that up with lying and untruths.

  • http://www.vinull.com Michael Neel

    I’m ready to stop using wikipedia as soon as someone links to the 100% accurate and complete source of information. until then, between Fox and Wikipedia – at least one has a talk page.

  • TPRJones

    “Aye, its true. When in a restaurant, if I don’t like whats being served, its a good idea to go into the kitchen and take over from the chef.”

    Oh, I wasn’t aware that you were paying wikipedia for their services. That’s the only way your comparisons make any sense.

    Wikipedia is a good starting point for information. Only believe things backed up by trustworthy citations, sure, but it’s no less worthwhile than any other set of encyclopedias. All because it’s on paper and compiled by a smaller number of “experts” doesn’t make all the commercial encyclopedias any less derivitive and factually manipulatable.

  • L’Emmerdeur

    Further evidence: the recipe for mayonnaise should call for two eggs, not one.

  • Aufero

    Wikipedia serves as a great place to find further search terms on a subject I’m interested in. It’s guaranteed to be at least mildly (or as in this case, ludicrously) inaccurate in any long article, but if I keep that in mind it’s useful.

    It’s no more biased than the two local newspapers I read.

  • http://weblog.probablynot.com Jason

    Wikipedia is really good for long conference calls. Why, just yesterday instead of being bored to tears listening to two people debate code change policy change (that’s right, not a change to code, but a change to policy regarding how changes to code should be requested), I read up on Mandy Moore, Gremlins 2, and MMORPGs.

    Seriously, its usually a decent place to get a start, link to some other sources and decide whether or not you care enough to learn more, but it absolutely should never be taken as a definitive source on anything.

  • shawnfarrell

    “If you have such a big problem with his entry, edit it. Thats the point of wikipedia.”

    Anyone who edits Wikipedia on a regular basis nows this is nonsense. The people who support any person come along and make the edit “neutral” which is ridiculous. Everything is equal on Wikipedia, all sides get their shake, even if one is totally wrong and nuts.

  • shawnfarrell

    knows*

  • Schlecht

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

    That page is why you can’t cite Wikipedia.

  • Bigwig

    You’re right. I’m nuts for suggesting someone edit a wiki to be more accurate. I’ll go kill myself now.

  • Ironwood

    The UK is invading the US with Demons ? That’s awesome.

    Does he also have a secret plan to fight inflation ?

  • antibunny

    Ta look at the discussion page. There’s been an ongoing edit war as old as Wikipedia over that guy between the experts (his supporters) and unsupported vandals (people who are calling him what he is).. When the Wikipedia higher-ups try to step in and mediate, they only end up trying to compromise with weasel words and ‘Some people say this, but others say that’.

  • http://www.plutospage.com/wow/ Yunk

    No Bigwig, you’re wrong for saying “that’s the point”, not for suggesting to edit it.

    Proof that wikipedia is a joke that doesn’t work:

    Here’s an entry for Shaman, near the bottom is Shaman in the media:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism#Shamans_in_the_Media
    World of Warcraft — A certain type of player class in the MMORPG World of Warcraft that has to heal at 70.

    ZOMG! :)

  • Copyright

    Funny–when I see an overtly positive entry on Wikipedia, it is a huge alert that the credibility of the wiki on that subject is compromised. I mean, serious articles about historical figures always whack them on their shortcomings–i.e. Jefferson had slaves, etc.

    As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if the editors clearly like you, it’s a reasonable presumption that the editors on that subject can’t be trusted. But I don’t think it undermines the concept of Wikipedia itself.

  • http://cnn.com ubvman

    Yunk, Wikipedia ownz joo! That entry has been changed!

  • http://www.killtenrats.com Zubon

    This seems like a good time to mention Wikipedia Brown

  • Walter Yarbrough

    Who here has been escorted off Larouche’s property by machine gun wielding thugs?

    /raise hand

    Anyone else?

  • Xanthippe

    Wikipedia works for what it does. It’s not authoritative, but used as one of many sources? Sure, why not?

  • Karnov

    “Why Wikipedia doesn’t work.”

    I’d say it works exactly as advertised. Sometimes it seems to me that everyone who has a complaint about Wikipedia has no clue how to evaluate citations and read between the lines

    Wiki has a built in feature where if you take everything as gospel, sooner or later you’re going to get a rude awakening. As far as I’m concerned, that’s awesome. People take crap at face value far too often.

    /with apologies for my smug, jackass post.

  • Brask Mumei

    Well said, Karnov!

    It is somewhat silly to say that “Wikipedia is not authorative”. Well, what is authorative? I know there are plenty of sources I’d trust more than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

  • http://www.edgecase.net/devsite Rich Bryant

    > he’s a cult leader who teaches that the UK leads a secret plot to infiltrate America with demons.

    Shit, we’ve been rumbled!

  • Duvall

    Yeah, Wikipedia isn’t accurate, unlike cable news, which is always correct, factual and non-speculative and doesn’t reach millions of more people every day.

  • http://ambernight.org Amber

    Yeah, Wikipedia isn’t accurate, unlike cable news, which is always correct, factual and non-speculative and doesn’t reach millions of more people every day.

    If you have such a big problem with cable news, just edit it. (Note: you must be Rupert Murdoch to edit this entry.)

  • http://www.adelecaelia.blogspot.com Adele

    Yeah it can obviously have some untruthful entries, or just some little white lies? lol. Although with that in mind I am sure there are some very creative entries in the wiki world!

  • http://kunikos.blogspot.com Kunikos

    “Wikipedia is for adult entertainment purposes only.”

  • StGabe

    I think these criticisms simply miss the point of Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia isn’t there to be a final, definitive source. It is there to represent what people think it is important to say about a person. In that respect it is often FAR more accurate than an encyclopedia entry which may have better fact-checking but will not cover a lot of current events, rumors, etc., that people are actually interested in reading.

    As long as you understand that people’s valuation of information related to a person doesn’t map directly to veracity, you should see that Wikipedia has quite a lot of value.

  • Pingback: This Just In: Lyndon LaRouche Hates Halo 3, World of Warcraft, You, and Second Life « Broken Toys