Wikipedia is wacky

This is a response to my classmates post on wikipedia

On Antibloggergirldc’s blog she posted about her wikiscanner report on the Indy Racing League.  In her findings the changes to the IRL wikientry were made by a few people.  It’s interesting, but make sense that most of the changes and discussion were centered around “controversy.”  Here are her observations:

Because some of the IRL edits were so old and have since been updated, I found more interesting comments on the IRL discussion and talk page. It started out much as I might expect: “I was looking at Wikipedia today and decided to see what they had on the EARL. The article wasn’t sufficiently negative, so I made some changes.” Another editor responded that “someone else might want to respond to that.”

The back & forth about controversial topics she cited was interesting.  But just look at the obsession with conflict in American culture.  Just think, everyone in America knows who Paris Hilton is, however, I doubt anyone can name any significant work she’s done.  But, she seems to always be involved in conflict and people keep watching.  Seems I’m rambling a bit…

…back OT…I agree with the current trend to reject & denounce the use wikipedia for citation on news articles and scholarly works.  Public Relations guru Steve Rubel agrees with me and asks these questions on his blog:

…when journalists cite Wikipedia articles, what happens when the facts they reference from the wiki entries change (assuming they do)? Do the reporters go back and update their articles? The news reports call more attention to the articles, potentially opening up a can of worms each time they source WIkipedia.

Here are more examples I found of rejecting & denouncing wiki as a source:  History department bans wiki; Professors reject wikipedia ; though this professor at a California University allows limited use of wikipedia.

Now, you ask, “Majorman, didn’t you just make your own original wikipedia entry on The Rocks, Inc. and significantley revise another biographical entry?” Yes, I did.  And you can use them as a good source because they have numerous citiations that will link you back to articles, official websites, and other websites.  I recommend you check the “history” of the wikipedia entry to determine if there are wacky wikipedians who wreck entries.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: