Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The self-esteem of a bad writer with a fragile ego may be damaged by people always correcting horrible prose, redundancies, bad grammar and spelling. This is especially true if proofreaders not only correct but upbraid the poor writers, who can perhaps offer expert knowledge or change subjective statements despite their mediocre use of English.
An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).
A 2011 study reported evidence of cultural bias in Wikipedia articles about famous people on both the English and Polish Wikipedias. These biases included those pertaining to the cultures of both the United States and Poland on each of the corresponding-language Wikipedias, as well as a pro-U.S./English-language bias on both of them. [154]
Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias. [6] [7] 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.
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, it has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, which allows any user to edit its encyclopedic pages, has led to ...
Wikipedia is simply not interested in them, except if they are so spread that they become notable and verifiable, eg, part of a culture. This does not also mean that Wikipedia is never biased: a methodology isn't an instantaneous nor foolproof solution, it takes time to converge [ a ] to a 100% encyclopedic state satisfying a totally neutral ...
Wikipedia attracts highly intelligent, articulate people (except for repeat vandals) with some time on their hands. Moreover, some experts contribute to the articles. Over time, the huge amount of solid work done by hobbyists and experts alike will inevitably build upon itself, therefore greatly improving Wikipedia's body of information.
Instead, Wikipedia became the battleground for angry people and the playpen of carefree writers. The people who remained to re-write Wikipedia were focused in 2 groups: intense people who treat Wikipedia as a battleground and spend time changing many articles to emphasize their opinions; or