Wikipedia criticized for inaccurate 'facts'
Website object of criticism for bad research information
Micah Stevens
Issue date: 2/26/10 Section: Features
Perhaps the eighth deadliest sin in the world of a college student is the use of Wikipedia. Janet Grooms-Baetsle, psychology junior, "Googles" her research topic "Dreams and sleep" Out of her 46,100,000 results she is first directed to Wikipedia. After scrolling through her Wikipedia page of 65 sources, she negates all the above information due to the simple fact that she knows the transgression of Wikipedia.
"My teacher never actually said I couldn't use it, but it's kind of implied. If I used it and sited it I'd probably get points docked or fail," Grooms-Baetsle said.
For years Wikipedia has become the object of criticism for not having accurate information. Colleges everywhere have banned the use of Wikipedia for students.
"I don't really get why we can't use it for basic information," Grooms-Baetsle said.
According to a study by Nature Magazine, Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica. For this study articles were chosen from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to experts for review. The findings concluded averaged of 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 mistakes for Wikipedia.
"I think it's a good source to begin research with," Jill Johnson, nursing junior, said.
Wikipedia's tagline is 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' Though this may sound unreliable, sources are documented and sent in for check upon submission.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales backs the validity of Wikipedia by stating: "Wikipedia has always maintained that the service and its community are built around self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate."
Krys Melton, Education junior said. "I understand why we can't use Wikipedia. Knowing my luck I would get the page that's been edited with the wrong information. It can be helpful sometimes because of the links at the bottom of the page."
Bob Emley, assistant professor of psychology, said, "I don't allow students to use Wikipedia. My class is mostly human services, and I want students to have current information, you never know how old that information is or the bias of the articles."
According to comScore, Wikipedia is among the ten most visited websites worldwide.
"Everything I 'Google' always seems to come up with some sort of Wikipedia page," Eric Howser, psychology and human services senior, said. "It's everywhere."
According to the Nature Magazine study Wikipedia has rebutted many cases against them claiming society should focus on the broader quality of what Wikipedia has to offer and not just one article.
"My teacher never actually said I couldn't use it, but it's kind of implied. If I used it and sited it I'd probably get points docked or fail," Grooms-Baetsle said.
For years Wikipedia has become the object of criticism for not having accurate information. Colleges everywhere have banned the use of Wikipedia for students.
"I don't really get why we can't use it for basic information," Grooms-Baetsle said.
According to a study by Nature Magazine, Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica. For this study articles were chosen from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to experts for review. The findings concluded averaged of 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 mistakes for Wikipedia.
"I think it's a good source to begin research with," Jill Johnson, nursing junior, said.
Wikipedia's tagline is 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' Though this may sound unreliable, sources are documented and sent in for check upon submission.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales backs the validity of Wikipedia by stating: "Wikipedia has always maintained that the service and its community are built around self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate."
Krys Melton, Education junior said. "I understand why we can't use Wikipedia. Knowing my luck I would get the page that's been edited with the wrong information. It can be helpful sometimes because of the links at the bottom of the page."
Bob Emley, assistant professor of psychology, said, "I don't allow students to use Wikipedia. My class is mostly human services, and I want students to have current information, you never know how old that information is or the bias of the articles."
According to comScore, Wikipedia is among the ten most visited websites worldwide.
"Everything I 'Google' always seems to come up with some sort of Wikipedia page," Eric Howser, psychology and human services senior, said. "It's everywhere."
According to the Nature Magazine study Wikipedia has rebutted many cases against them claiming society should focus on the broader quality of what Wikipedia has to offer and not just one article.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Gregory Kohs
posted 2/27/10 @ 9:13 AM CST
Micah Stevens repeats a number of myths about Wikipedia here. The Nature "study" was not a "study", it was a news gimmick that was rigged from the outset. (Continued…)
Cryptic C62
posted 2/27/10 @ 6:24 PM CST
"sources are documented and sent in for check upon submission."
"Documented"? Yes, that's what the inline citation system is for. "Sent in for check"? Besides the fact that this is not grammatically correct, it is still a fundamentally incorrect view of how Wikipedia works. (Continued…)
leapoffaith
posted 3/05/10 @ 10:08 PM CST
I personally agree with this article. I think Micah Stevens did a wonderful job comparing information to Britannica. Good job!
Joe Lee
posted 4/25/10 @ 3:59 PM CST
The Nature study was a real study. The only ones to refute it were representatives of Encyclopedia Britannica, ashamed that Wikipedia nearly matched them in quality. (Continued…)
Post a Comment