Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 28 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 ...
Not least in articles about Why Wikipedia is not so great which by no means reflect all the Wikipedia:Criticisms that qualified people have levied on it. Similarly, fanatical or ignorant users adhering to generally good rules to Wikipedia:avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Redirects have failed to recognize the few places where these are in ...
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 should be considered to be like a library rather than a single source. Just because a book is in the library does not mean the book is a reliable source, and conversely, just because a book in the library is unreliable does not mean the entire library is unreliable [11]. Thus, a poor article from Wikipedia should not prompt academics ...
Using Wikipedia's history functionality, which retains all prior versions of an article, restoring the article to the last version before the vandalism occurred; this is called reverting vandalism. [6] The majority of vandalism on Wikipedia is reverted quickly. [9] There are various ways in which the vandalism gets detected so it can be reverted:
To answer this question, some great people have written some explanations and arguments on this page. Everybody should use Wikipedia, either as a source or, if you find deficiencies, as a medium you can make contributions. For comparison, see also Wikipedia: Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia: Replies to common objections. You can ...
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).
Wikipedia has a policy on child protection and will remove editors who are suspected of being dangerous towards children either online or in the real world. However, children and their parents must understand that Wikipedia does not collect information about its editors (in the way that sites such as Facebook do), and most editors are anonymous.