Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, the site has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, under which anyone can edit most articles, has led to concerns ...
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source , it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism , a work in progress , or simply incorrect.
A 2014 trend analysis published in The Economist stated that "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years." [25] The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was described by The Economist as substantially higher than in other (non-English Wikipedias).
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 9 December 2024. Controversy surrounding the online encyclopedia Wikipedia This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Criticism of Wikipedia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR ...
Personal preference as well as just pure meanheartedness often outrule any sense of right and wrong. Admins are not immune to this either. If a user is blocked indefinitely, their block log says "an expiry time of indefinite", which is a very unsensible sentence. Similarly, when they try to edit a page, it says "your block will expire indefinite".
It means that Wikipedia is wrong. While at first glance that may appear like a very big problem for Wikipedia, in reality it is not. In fact, it can be seen as a good thing. Wikipedia is a project to build a free encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and Wikipedia is no different in that respect.
Wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very ...
Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias. [8] [9] A comprehensive study conducted on ten different versions of Wikipedia revealed that disputes among editors predominantly arise on the subject of politics, encompassing politicians, political parties, political movements, and ideologies.