Wikipedia: Help needed
It would be good for us all to go out there and help wikipedia accurately portray what has been going on with signgate.
For example, I just changed the Wolverine's football page to say the NCAA investigation is about "advance scouting" and not "illegal sign stealing".
I also added some color to Thamel's page about getting raked over the coals by Dave Shuster. I also added that it was surprising he got married, but that will be removed.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:11 PM ^
I only read wikipedia when it is about like movies or something. I would say over half of what is on wikipedia is outright false or based on speculation. Most of it is garbage. It also has a lot of information where opinion is stated as fact. Bad source.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:12 PM ^
actually this is far from the truth - wikipedia is a very respectable source of information on many topics.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:13 PM ^
We will agree to disagree.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:30 PM ^
It depends on the topic. Subjects that are controversial tend to be less reliable whereas settled topics are more so. Just like a lot of sources, you have to know how to use it.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:53 PM ^
I lead tours for a living. Wikipedia provides quick reliable information on cities, National Parks or places of interest.
National Park sites, government city sites, etc are the most clunky and unintuitive sites out there.
If I'm doing a deep dive I have books and other sources to refer to but a lot of times on the the road I'll need some quick info on a place that we're passing by. In this case wikipedia is great.
As a lot of people said it depends on what you're looking up.
I will add that if you're looking up something controversial, political, religious or anything polarizing then be ready to see things you don't agree with. Of course it depends on which side of the fence you reside.
November 9th, 2023 at 2:02 PM ^
This same kritik applies to other sources though. So effectively wikipedia is always superior to other sources of information. Unless you're looking for something highly technical it's the best thing that's ever existed.
November 9th, 2023 at 3:28 PM ^
Most historical information is reasonably reliable, as long as they are sufficiently in the past and doesn't have current political implications.
The scientific information that I've seen has also seemed reasonably good (to me as a layman). Again, as long as it doesn't have current implications.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:24 PM ^
It absolutely can be ---- for instance, I can get 12,000+ words of information and learn all kinds of fascinating things on a relatively "basic" topic like a Pythagorean Theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
But there are other topics where it is absolute garbage. There was once a Wiki article about a Japanese car factory that was up for years. Thing is, the factory was completely fictiuous, it didn't exist.
It does require a nuanced eye to differentiate the good from the bad.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:32 PM ^
I agree with this - depends on the topic. For many things it’s totally fine but for some topics you should just be aware of potential issues and get a perspective from multiple sources.
This article highlights issues one journalist had with edits to their own Wikipedia page should anyone have an interest in a specific case with multiple examples.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/06/wikipedia-weaponization-a-dissection-of-bias/
November 9th, 2023 at 1:52 PM ^
There’s also a funny story about Philip Roth being told that he was not a credible source about one of his own books.
Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my interlocutor was told by the “English Wikipedia Administrator”—in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor—that I, Roth, was not a credible source: “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work,” writes the Wikipedia Administrator—“but we require secondary sources.”
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia
November 9th, 2023 at 2:13 PM ^
Beautiful fucking beautiful.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:57 PM ^
Wait, are you saying the person in charge has to be responsible for everything, including someone going rogue?
November 9th, 2023 at 12:27 PM ^
You can make a quick distinction between content that is factual and that which is presented with a clear bias.
To say that Wikipedia is an objective source on subjects that divide such as politics and faith is the same as claiming Pete Thamel is an objective reporter.
November 9th, 2023 at 1:12 PM ^
It’s the same as saying anyone is an objective reporter - since it’s written by many people. I trust it as much as I trust anything else - especially since it links sources, which most articles don’t do
November 9th, 2023 at 12:46 PM ^
Hmmm.
My dad is an award winning comics historian and he generally reviles Wikipedia. It’s filled with distortions and inaccuracies.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:58 PM ^
For Cell/Molecular biology it's honestly better than a lot of textbooks. Easily searchable (look up any random cellular receptor) and the primary sources are linked.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:20 PM ^
You're welcome to get involved to update entries. I love that there is an alternative where the public can get involved, over say Google.
There tends to be a reasonable amount of references footnoted, more and better resources are encouraged.
Lend your wisdom. Project manage entries. It's a living document.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:25 PM ^
Wikipedia does something that I object to, generally, that is becoming more prevalent in the media generally. There are some things that are so universally accepted that they should be presented as facts. There are other things that rest somewhere between fact and opinion that are represented as fact. I think it is problematic. I know others may disagree, which I why I want to let it rest. It is a good site for some things, IMO, and not good at all for others.
November 9th, 2023 at 1:08 PM ^
Yes. Use Wikipedia for what is designed for, which is as a place to start research, not a place to stop on research. Follow its links to see if its information coms from reliable sources and is accurately summarized, and ignore anything that is not sourced (unless you are looking to be entertained and don't really care about accuracy).
Wikipedia finally brings Denis Diderot's dream of an encyclopedia to life.
November 9th, 2023 at 2:40 PM ^
Can you provide 3 examples?
November 9th, 2023 at 4:21 PM ^
Wikipedia has its uses and limitations.
A friend and I have been running an "experiment" for at least 20 years. We've put entirely fabricated information on Wikipedia. Far from being caught, it has proliferated. The brilliance is that once another site uses your material from wiki without citing it, you can then cite them as a "source" for the stuff you made up in the first place. It's hilarious how much of a veneer of "serious" a simple web citation can lend to an entry.
That being said, Wikipedia is fairly accurate for a lot of topics. It is a good place to start your research journey but stop there at your own risk, especially for important topics.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:11 PM ^
idk this seems kinda petty
but funny
November 9th, 2023 at 12:12 PM ^
yeah I agree. I will regret it later.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:25 PM ^
Oh, but you'll enjoy it now, and nobody can fault you for that...
November 9th, 2023 at 12:28 PM ^
I felt bad and removed that it was "surprising" that he got married.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:24 PM ^
Thats the best kind of petty.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:13 PM ^
Any update on Tucking?
November 9th, 2023 at 12:14 PM ^
If you get flagged by Wikipedia editors as introducing biased content, they will most likely flag and/or remove all of the recent content you have added on that and similar topics.
TL/DR - all of your edits and additions, both benign (i.e., calling it "advanced scouting") and inflammatory (i.e., calling Paul Thamel a "flaming shitnozzle") will be gone soon.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:23 PM ^
Agree inflammatory is a waste and causes other people more energy to remove it...plus it destroys the integrity of Wikipedia.
"Illegal" could be softened a bit. No one will go to jail. Seemingly against the rules awaiting final outcome perhaps.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:27 PM ^
(i.e., calling Paul Thamel a "flaming shitnozzle") will be gone soon.
But not so soon that we can't all enjoy it?
November 9th, 2023 at 12:32 PM ^
Deleted
November 9th, 2023 at 12:41 PM ^
If you get flagged by Wikipedia editors as introducing biased content, they will most likely flag and/or remove all of the recent content you have added on that and similar topics.
If it's unsourced. Add a source - reputable or not - and it will usually slide ... which is a serious weakness of Wikipedia.
November 9th, 2023 at 1:56 PM ^
Nah, it may slide for a little while with "ho-hum" pages of little importance, but with something this high profile the editors will usually notice pretty quickly. This is how they lock pages when something dramatic happens so fast; lots of changes out of nowhere "alert" the page editors.
But hey, we can do an experiment here. Change Pete Thamel's occupation to "ESPN Cock Polisher," use 11 Warriors as a reference sources, and let's see what happens! :-)
November 9th, 2023 at 12:14 PM ^
Wikipedia needs to be accurate! Except for the parts I want to troll!
November 9th, 2023 at 12:16 PM ^
The best troll I have ever seen on there was when the "owner" of Value City Arena in Columbus was changed to "Hunter Dickinson" after the 2021 game.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:21 PM ^
This is why I don't ever read Wikipedia. It can't be relied upon.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:24 PM ^
It's good for basics.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:21 PM ^
Wikipedia should be a encyclopedia site and not a drama infused tabloid knock off. Controversy like this should not constituent a battle and engaging in one de-legitimizes that site.
I despise reading the entries for public figures for just the reason you stated above.
November 9th, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
Mork's wikipedia page said he "retired in shame" for a short time..... I have a screen shot of it somewhere.....
November 9th, 2023 at 12:42 PM ^
“I also added that it was surprising he got married”
I’m not at all surprised…some of the recent advances achieved in animal husbandry by our MSU colleagues have been quite remarkable….
November 9th, 2023 at 1:20 PM ^
What good does this do exactly?
November 9th, 2023 at 1:43 PM ^
Can we call Purdue, Rutgers and OSU "the sign stealing 3" or "the sign stealing conspiracy"?
November 9th, 2023 at 2:21 PM ^
I have no idea if it still exists, but in my day UM had a formal Wikipedia Club which met regularly to write and update Wiki articles about the university and its many facets.
Read any article about the history of the school, random athletes, buildings on campus, etc. and it will be super detailed, well-researched and accurate...this group is probably why.
November 9th, 2023 at 3:27 PM ^
Don't do the childish entry stuff - "it was surprising he got married" - we are better than that.
November 9th, 2023 at 11:07 PM ^
Good luck.
My past experience with Wikipedia editing is that there is a full-time inside group of privileged editors who determine what articles can say. And if you post things they don't like (regardless of strength of your documentation and references), they will repeatedly revert your edits until you give up.
(For me, this was about adding information into the Wiki entry for Air Warrior, an old, defunct on-line game, which I had enormous experience with and knowledge of.)