What exactly is wrong with Wikipedia? Is the information on the

Decent place to get a general overview. If you want deeper understanding, follow the source links.

>>7962735
What exactly ido you mean by "wrong", fgt?

>>7962735
Wikipedia being wrong is just misconception of retarded teens.

>>7962736
This is true, for scientific articles.

Some political ones are leftist, so, biased.

Historical ones are not bad, but history requires "multiple sources" because of its nature.

>>7962823
Sorry, english is not my "mother's tongue", so I don't really have a large vocabulary. I'm trying to ask, if there is bias'd information in Wikipedia alot or not. I want to know, if it's run by group of people with desires of their own, so there is at least a possibility to lie opinions of Wikipedia's staff.

>>7962837
History for sure, but can you point me some biased articles or articles that has biases on politics. I'm specially interested of the scientific articles.

File: Thanks_wikipedia.png (38KB, 1420x594px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1420x594px

>>7962735
>What exactly is wrong with Opinionpedia?

Quite a bit, desu. Don't get me wrong it can be useful, but articles just devolve into circlejerk and edit wars between editors that don't like each other. Moreover popular opinion prevails over actual fact based research (and sometimes even their own policies), every damn time, a great example of this is their article on the king of /sci/ Jacob Barrnet. His article has been put up for deletion numerous times now, for various reasons (in particular because he hasn't done anything of note), yet it still exists solely because enough contributors think that he really is something special.

>tl;dr Wikipedia is mostly opinion generated content, with a bias towards those opinions.

>>7962736
What this guy said. For science esp bio sciences Wikipedia is generally correct especially in overview but on the finer details it can fuck up. Read the overview, read the textbook.

>>7962979
>if it's run by group of people with desires of their own

You know you and anyone can edit Wikipedia, right?
Wikipedia staff themselves say they want to be neutral.
But of course, if you take an emotional topic like the refugee crisis, people will write at some level between facts and what they like to read. As pointed out above, the view is like its main user base, rather lefty. Not many people from the IS are writing there, so IS will not be associated with anything positive there too.
If you take that time in history when the soviets raped 10^5 Berlin girls, or when the Americans raped the Japs,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan
then you'll see a source war of the users who dispute quality and want to rewrite this and that.
So in the end, things like math where emotional commitment is low, will be of better quality and can freely improve

>>7962735
If you look at the talk page of any scientific article, you can see how high on the list of priorities it is for several wikiprojects groups. The higher priority it is, the more rapidly edits are reviewed by the community for quality.

Relatively unimportant pages can have edits left for months without being reviewed.

>>7962735
For chemistry, math, engineering; it's fine.

>>7962993
>Jacob
there are pages for the other internet-celebrities, so why not him?

>>7962735
The math articles are generally good... assuming you have a math degree. Some of the articles will go full Bourbaki on your ass. Others are more accessible though.

>>7962735
Teenagers with ADHD and autism roving around and editing to their preferences. Having infinite time they can delete everything on a whim.

>>7963001
>You know you and anyone can edit Wikipedia, right?
Yes. I know. I used to be a contributor until it was clear it was not worth the effort of the hassle of battling the deletionists. These are the direct descendants of the mob that burned don the library of Alexandria,

Also read the ugly truth from Aaron Schwartz:
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia

I think the "dont use wikipedia" or >wikipedia meme is hillarious. Although the site can be editted, the mods are dogged, the punishments of trolling are strong bans and the articles typically have more sources listed than a scientific journal.

Wikipedia itself is a great tool in the professional field, school teachers who graduate to state college fear that technology. Its a part of a larger system that is getting people more educated with less time in the classroom and lab.

>>7963683
>http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia

It would be interesting if he looked at articles that actually matter, rather than articles on TV plebbitry.

I didn't read the whole article, so I'm obviously just going on what I've read

He seems to be taking the general trend of looking at contributions to TV show articles and actors, things that any individual can contribute to (if they watch the show), and applying it to all of wikipedia, which contains significant amounts of large articles dedicated to specialist subjects.

Alot of definitions are changed for a liberal bias, which makes you wonder what else they change.

>>7964245
> muh tinfoil hattery

>>7962735
No, but it can be easily edited, although important articles are often locked from them and they change it back fairly quickly.
Not a source but good to get a good understanding.
Recommended to use the sources below

>>7964247
Not /pol/ but the whole gamergate shit showed how horrible are some Wikipedia articles. Maybe no one can really understand what 4chan is all about.

>>7962993
What's wrong with your pic related? Isn't that correct?

File: fuc.png (447KB, 516x526px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 516x526px

>>7962735

> imagine a Utopian society were people come together to create a magic encyclopedia containing almost every piece of knowledge available to the human race, organized and accessible from almost any were one the planet with 99% accuracy

> academics will STILL COMPLAIN about it because muh "anyone can edit" meme
> "wikipedia is not a source"

>>7962824
>Wikipedia being wrong is just misconception of retarded teens.

Nice meme. I've see some scientific articles with notable one sided biases so you'd be wrong on that. There's a reason why professors don't allow its use-because it isn't always accurate.

>>7964455
>99% accuracy
>every piec eof knowledge

whatever you think this means, it's wrong. wikipedia is a very light overview

>>7964570
Name a more universal source of information besides a search engine.

>>7962735
It's good for topics where money isn't involved.

Political and pharmaceuticals pages tend to be biased. I think IPs from Congress got banned because of all the editing interns did.