You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Can Wikipedia be considered a definitive source of information?

    The general tendency among the netizens is to search the internet whenever they want information on any topic or whenever they get a doubt. The first thing that is referred to is Wikipedia. Whatever information that is provided in Wikipedia may be the work of a number of people. The article can be edited by any person at any time. Some times, it may so happen that the matter may be edited deliberately to give wrong information. This is what is referred to as vandalism. We have to use our judgment while considering the information available on Wikipedia.

    In any Wikipedia page, on the top right-hand side, we find the "view history" button. One can find the edits made on that page from this. For a layman like me, it may be difficult but for a person with good computer knowledge, it is easy to find when and where the edits are made. Today, with regard to a pending forum thread at ISC, I have tried to find the edits on a page in Wikipedia about " Freedom of Speech" and found that an edit was made in 2014. This edit may be right or wrong but it was used to defame a famous political leader of yesteryears.

    Wikipedia is generally a reliable source of information. There will be some people who try to edit it to suit their purpose. One should be cautious while accepting everything on Wikipedia as a reference. I want the members of the forum to enlighten on this topic and correct me if there are any mistakes.
  • #667748
    There is no authentication about the information available on Wikipedia. Really it is a work of different people. But generally, they are supposed to give references from where the got the information I think. So we should cross verify the information from other authenticated sources.
    But people may not deliberately add false information. Because the site management will know who made the changes and if they know the information provided is a doubtful they may get it corrected. When the edited is made and where the editions are also known.
    Anyhow, we may not be able to rule out the doubt raised by the author of this thread. There may be some people who deliberately do some unwanted changes. So cross verifying is always a must.

    drrao
    always confident

  • #667800
    The information in Wikipedia is always a matter of doubt as it goes on being edited by thousands of the freelancing editors but still it is a great source of handy information. There might be a few cases of vandalism but those are very few. There is a lot of volunteer activity in Wikipedia and there are some volunteering editors who are doing a superb job by catching the bad elements and not allowing their contributions to surface out. For new submissions the old experienced volunteering editors are really doing good job and not publishing them until sufficient reputed references are mentioned.

    Incidentally, I am also a voluntary editor in Wikipedia contributing now and then and I find that with time it is developing in a good source of information but the fact is that in internet one should not assume everything is correct until you cross check it from a few other sources.

    Wikipedia is a great example of collaborative volunteering contributions by its thousands of editors to create a massive website of that dimension.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #667819
    There is no doubt that Wikipedia provides us good information. But I have come across in many cases the information updated in Wikipedia is wrong. Therefore we cannot totally consider the information available Wikipedia is authenticated.
    "If you don’t understand my silence, you will not understand my words"
    Unknown

  • #667828
    duplicate

  • #667829
    Wikipedia is a useful source of information at our fingertips. But whether it is authentic or reliable. No it is not. Instead of repeating or copying from the page, I have attached an image wherein the source itself says that it is NOT reliable, it is just a starting point for a particular research topic or item.
    Image from wiki page

    Delete Attachment

  • #667832
    Wikipedia provides us information. Whether it is reliable or not, depends upon the perception of the reader/user. At the best/least, it can be said that if the user has doubt about the authenticity of the information provided by Wikipedia, it is his/her own responsibility to check information on the same issue from other sources (which do not provide any guarantee to furnish correct information).
    'Nayak nahin; Khalnayak hoon main' (I am not the hero; I am the villain)

  • #667837
    The information available on Wikipedia is the individual or combined efforts of volunteers. Wikipedia itself admits that it is subjected to vandalism by some unscrupulous persons especially in the case of celebrities and politically sensitive matters. Some people use such wrong information knowingly or unknowingly as authentic for their own purpose. The wrong information provided may be detected and corrected sometimes or it may remain there until detected. It is advisable to use discretion while using the information on Wikipedia.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #667843
    Wikipedia is very popular and easiest way to get information on any thing. It is true that the information should be used with caution and care after proper verification from other sources. I think this is the only site which is surviving without the help from revenue from advertisements as it does not endorse advertisements.
    Thoughts exchanged is knowledge gained.


  • Sign In to post your comments