Matt H Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I found out today that you can edit anything you like in wikipedia, don’t have to be logged in to any account. So you could completely change any article to read how you like. Before today, I trusted wikipedia as my number one source for accurate information and anything and everything, but if anyone can do anything to any article, who decides who is right and who is wrong? For example, I’ve just downloaded donkey kong country 3 on the wii virtual console. I was looking at the wiki article and it was so comprehensive, who writes all that stuff on something so trivial ? I ended up pressing the edit button. This is the point at which I found I could edit the article to change something. I.e. if I didn’t think Dixie Kong (main character) was called Dixie Kong, then I could change is to Peter Kong. Save it and then I suppose wait for someone to change it back or challenge it? But with all the stuff on there, who are the experts that make the decisions? Seems very open to violation to me. But it just doesn’t seem that way. With the amount of arses on the planet, wouldn’t they just go through changing stuff all day making a mockery of the site? But I’ve never seen any of that? It just shouldn’t work, but it does, and so well apparantly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Thought the mods had to accept your alterations for them to be live Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrRalphMan Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 PCPro (magazine) did an experiment where they made 10 deliberate errors in 10 entries. Link is here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceRocket Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 You can edit anything apart from high profile stuff like George Bush etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrRalphMan Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I think Jake is our own resident Wiki updater... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I thought you had to be logged in now to make edits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 Well i made an edit on a page. just added a few words, my colleague loaded it up and it was there for him to see. I deleted what i added but im so suprised at the level of freedom. I would have at least thought someone shuold have to check it before it goes in for everyone to see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 PCPro (magazine) did an experiment where they made 10 deliberate errors in 10 entries. Link is here. Qoute from that article: "Two errors slipped through the net: the Centrino date change and, more obviously, our claim that astronaut Jim Lovell and his crew had flown around the moon twice on the Apollo 13 mission. Both were left to stand for more than a week before we corrected them to ensure there was no long-term damage from our experiment. The lessons? It seems Wikipedia corrects the vast majority of errors within minutes, but if they're not spotted within the first day the chances of them being corrected dwindle, as you're then relying on someone to spot the mistake while reading the article rather than reviewing the edits." If you're relying on someone else to correct the article, then sure the system is buggered, because the people most likely to view an article are people wanting the info on it, so they don't know any different" My trust in the site has just hit a brick wall. You can't allow people to simply edit stuff without any effort and without other people looking at it first. The whole idea is to make it easy for wiki to expand, but i think it adds a fatal flaw to the system in doing so. People who are willing to add an article or provide their advice would also be willing to log in to a user account and allow their work to go through a check system before it appears as gospel. The people that are too idle to do that are the ones you don't want editing stuff, so why make it easy for the idiots? Now Wiki is so huge, they should seriously consider limiting editing and article production ability to make sure now its firmly planted its routes, it can now strive to be extremely accurate. I'm sure at the start it was a good idea to allow such freedom to get as much stuff into the database as possible, but now, theres no need for such freedom to exist and in turn leave itself open for abuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Qoute from that article: "It seems Wikipedia corrects the vast majority of errors within minutes." That's impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 Heres a thought, should someone like Branners do an article for "mkivsupra.net" on the wiki? its not on there yet and im sure it would fit in nicely along the oodles of other articles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I am well going to have some fun with this cheers!!! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 That's impressive. It is indeed, but the stuff that really counts (the information that not many people can say they know about and therefore are looking up) is the stuff that slips through the net. Sure, you can edit out someone changing the number of spice girls to 6 members, but the other stuff.. well, that slipped through the net, the most important bits, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 I am well going to have some fun with this cheers!!! lol There you go....... now one knows how easy it is, he will pass the info onto the other idiots, and there will go, abuse of what is an amazing reference tool. Bet if he had to sign up then it would be a different matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartworm Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 yep, we arn't allowed to use it as a reference for uni work, cause anyone can put anything at all in for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 yep, we arn't allowed to use it as a reference for uni work, cause anyone can put anything at all in for it. I'm not suprised about that because reference work has to be journels etc. But i get your point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 It's a common misconception. One of the funniest I saw was shortly after we'd come back from China and Vicki was printing out information for the photo book. She got to the Great Wall and it read "During the Warring States Period from the 5th century BC to 221 BC, the states of Qi, Yan and Zhao all constructed extensive fortifications to keep out the rabbits" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.