Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia/Reliability"
(Redirected page to Wikipedia/Problems#Reliability) |
(Worth its own page) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{Concept | |
| + | |wikipedia=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia | ||
| + | |constitutes= | ||
| + | |description=Wikipedia assumes that corporate media is reliable, which this website does not. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | '''[[Wikipedia]]'s reliability is patchy.''' Its guidelines ensure that those people and institutions capable of using {{ccm}} to spread lies will receive effective support in this effort from Wikipedia. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Guidelines== | ||
| + | Wikipedia explicitly seeks to exclude opinions which are free from hierarchical control; its guidelines on reliability state that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited]" which sounds reasonable until we note the definition of a 'questionable source'- ''"those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."'' At a stroke, individuals are out, organisations are in, especially those which promulgate the official narrative. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Blogs, say the reliability guidelines, ''"may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."'' <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources Wikipedia's definition of "Reliable Sources"]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | So, Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources means that anyone who is wealthy or influential enough to communicate their message through the {{ccm}} may ipso facto also tell their story on Wikipedia. Those who have less influence over big media have correspondingly less influence over Wikipedia. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Persistence of deliberately introduced mistakes== | ||
| + | The claim that the "wisdom of crowds" ensures accuracy is unproven.<ref>A simple experiment by [[Adrian Hänni]] revealed that [https://medium.com/new-media/wisdom-of-the-crowd-20810e21b572 deliberately introduced errors] can persist for months.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{Reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 04:23, 30 May 2018
 Wikipedia/Reliability    | |
|---|---|
| Wikipedia assumes that corporate media is reliable, which this website does not. |
Wikipedia's reliability is patchy. Its guidelines ensure that those people and institutions capable of using commercially-controlled media to spread lies will receive effective support in this effort from Wikipedia.
Contents
Guidelines
Wikipedia explicitly seeks to exclude opinions which are free from hierarchical control; its guidelines on reliability state that "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited" which sounds reasonable until we note the definition of a 'questionable source'- "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." At a stroke, individuals are out, organisations are in, especially those which promulgate the official narrative.
Blogs, say the reliability guidelines, "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." [1]
So, Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources means that anyone who is wealthy or influential enough to communicate their message through the commercially-controlled media may ipso facto also tell their story on Wikipedia. Those who have less influence over big media have correspondingly less influence over Wikipedia.
Persistence of deliberately introduced mistakes
The claim that the "wisdom of crowds" ensures accuracy is unproven.[2]
Related Quotation
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quotation | “The problem with internet quotes is that you cant [sic.] always depend on their accuracy” | Abraham Lincoln | 1864 |
References
- ↑ Wikipedia's definition of "Reliable Sources"
- ↑ A simple experiment by Adrian Hänni revealed that deliberately introduced errors can persist for months.
