Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 18 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 ...
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 ...
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".
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.
detailed knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines, procedures and biases - Everyone knows intuitively what an encyclopedia is -- it's a place to look up information -- but people should not be confused or smacked down for being confused about all the things Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, or oddities like its inclusion of Pokémon but exclusion of ...
Disputes on Wikipedia arise from Wikipedians, who are volunteer editors, disagreeing over article content, internal Wikipedia affairs, or alleged misconduct. Disputes often manifest as repeated competing changes to an article, known as " edit wars ", where instead of making small changes, edits are "reverted" wholesale.
So Wikipedia gets it wrong. Britannica gets it wrong, too. The important thing about systems isn't how they work, it's how they fail. Fixing a Wikipedia article is simple. Participating in the brawl takes more effort, but then, that's the price you pay for truth, and it's still cheaper than starting up your own Britannica.