The reliability of Wikipedia has been frequently questioned and often assessed. The reliability . He wrote that Wikipedia is "surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history" and .. Now a website designed to monitor editorial changes made on Wikipedia has found thousands of self- serving edits. Confidential | For Discussion Purposes Only | The Needed Traits of the Next Yahoo CEO 86 § Relevant Industry Experience in. Order Lightweight suitcases online, and enjoy FREE shipping on all American Tourister light suitcases, great quality suitcases.
If it ever matters to you whether something he said is real or fictional, it's crucial to check it out with a more reliable source. A couple of weeks later, a Newsday sports writer reproduced the nickname in an article, and "with that act, the fake nickname became real". The name had been added to the Wikipedia article on The Independent over a year prior, and turned out to be that of a year-old Californian, whose friend had added his name to a string of Wikipedia pages as a prank.
My friend went on and edited a bunch of Wikipedia pages and put my name there. At one point I was the creator of Coca-Cola or something. You know how easy it is to change Wikipedia. Every time he came across a red linked name he put my name in its place. Health information on Wikipedia Science and medicine are areas where accuracy is of high importance and peer review is the norm.PrincipioUltimo, opinión editoriales
While some of Wikipedia's content has passed a form of peer review, most has not. The researchers found few factual errors in this set of articles, but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like contraindications and drug interactions. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional They have determined that MDR provided answers to None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR.
But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: It was based on the answers of members of the Society of Toxicology and found that these experts regarded Wikipedia's reliability in this area as far higher than that of all traditional news media: In perhaps the most surprising finding in the entire study, all these national media outlets [U.
WebMD is the only news source whose coverage of chemical risk is regarded as accurate by a majority 56 percent of toxicologists, closely followed by Wikipedia's 45 percent accuracy rating. By contrast, only 15 percent describe as accurate the portrayals of chemical risk found in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. However, according to Stevie Benton of Wikimedia UK the sample size used in the research may have been too small to be considered representative.
It found that "the collaborative and participatory design of Wikipedia does generate high quality information on pharmacology that is suitable for undergraduate medical education". McHenry argued that "the typical user doesn't know how conventional encyclopedias achieve reliability, only that they do". The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security.
What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
Ciudades Desiertas - Wikipedia
The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven. Hoiberg focused on a need for expertise and control in an encyclopedia and cited Lewis Mumford that overwhelming information could "bring about a state of intellectual enervation and depletion hardly to be distinguished from massive ignorance".
Wales emphasized Wikipedia's differences, and asserted that openness and transparency lead to quality. Hoiberg replied that he "had neither the time nor space to respond to [criticisms]" and "could corral any number of links to articles alleging errors in Wikipedia", to which Wales responded: Wikipedia to the rescue with a fine article", and included a link to the Wikipedia article Criticism of Wikipedia.
Circular reporting A diagram of "citogenesis" Circular reporting was reported to be a reliability problem for Wikipedia. Sources accepted as reliable for Wikipedia may in fact rely on Wikipedia as a reference source, sometimes indirectly.
Reliability of Wikipedia
The danger is that if the original information in Wikipedia was false, once it has been reported in sources considered reliable, Wikipedia may use them to reference the false information, giving an apparent respectability to a falsehood.
This in turn increases the likelihood of the false information being reported in other media. A piece of misinformation originally taken from a Wikipedia article will live on in perhaps dozens of other websites, even if Wikipedia itself has deleted the unreliable material. There is no one perfect way. Britannica seems to claim that there is.
Wikipedia acknowledges there's no such thing. Librarians and information professionals have always known this. That's why we always consult multiple sources and counsel our users to do the same.
Jonathan Sidener of The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote that "vandalism and self-serving misinformation [are] common particularly in the political articles". That does not devalue the project entirely, it just means that we should be skeptical about Wikipedia entries as a primary source of information It is the same with search engine results.
Just because something comes up in the top 10 on MSN Search or Google does not automatically give it credibility or vouch for its accuracy or importance. It is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic. He was surprised that his entry to World Book Encyclopedia on virtual reality was accepted without question, so he concluded, "I now believe Wikipedia is a perfectly fine source for your information, because I know what the quality control is for real encyclopedias.
We've examined many pages on Wikipedia that treat controversial topics, and have discovered that most have, in fact, been vandalized at some point in their history. But we've also found that vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects.
An informal assessment by the popular IT magazine PC Pro for its article "Wikipedia Uncovered"  tested Wikipedia by introducing 10 errors that "varied between bleeding obvious and deftly subtle" into articles the researchers later corrected the articles they had edited.
Labeling the results "impressive" it noted that all but one was noted and fixed within the hour, and that "the Wikipedians' tools and know-how were just too much for our team. Two of the latter series were not detected. The article concluded that "Wikipedia corrects the vast majority of errors within minutes, but if they're not spotted within the first day the chances A study in late systematically inserted inaccuracies into Wikipedia entries about the lives of philosophers.
Depending on how exactly the data are interpreted, either one third or one half of the inaccuracies were corrected within 48 hours. Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views.
Loc Vu-Quocprofessor for Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Floridastated in that "sometimes errors may go for years without being corrected as experts don't usually read Wikipedia articles in their own field to correct these errors".
WikiScanner In AugustWikiScanner, a tool developed by Virgil Griffith of the California Institute of Technology, was released to match anonymous IP edits in the encyclopedia with an extensive database of addresses. Wikipedia Scanner may prevent an organization or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to.
But the online encyclopedia has since been hijacked by forces who decided that certain things were best left unknown Now a website designed to monitor editorial changes made on Wikipedia has found thousands of self-serving edits and traced them to their original source.
It has turned out to be hugely embarrassing for armies of political spin doctors and corporate revisionists who believed their censorial interventions had gone unnoticed. Oliver Kammin a column for The Timesargued instead that: Critics of the web decry the medium as the cult of the amateur. Wikipedia is worse than that; it is the province of the covert lobby. The most constructive course is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions. WikiScanner only reveals conflict of interest when the editor does not have a Wikipedia account and their IP address is used instead.
Conflict of interest editing done by editors with accounts is not detected, since those edits are anonymous to everyone—except for a handful of privileged Wikipedia admins. Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor, indeed trivial, factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels.
In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine London philosopher Martin Cohen frames Wikipedia of having "become a monopoly" with "all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators", which he describes as a "youthful cab-drivers" perspective.
Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought. For example, Stephen Colbert once mockingly praised Wikipedia for having a "longer entry on ' lightsabers ' than it does on the ' printing press '. People write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese artand the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair.
As Ivor Tossell noted: That Wikipedia is chock full of useless arcana and did you know, by the way, that the article on "Debate" is shorter than the piece that weighs the relative merits of the and versions of Battlestar Galactica?
Since it can grow infinitely, the silly articles aren't depriving the serious ones of space. Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger stated in"when it comes to relatively specialized topics outside of the interests of most of the contributorsthe project's credibility is very uneven.
Its editors have also argued that, as a website, Wikipedia is able to include articles on a greater number of subjects than print encyclopedias can. Relationship between Mexico and the USA[ edit ] Susana and Eligio criticize each other throughout the novel for characteristics that they have in common.
Also, both accuse each other of seeking self-autonomy even though they are married; however, even though they want independence, they search for each other in different countries, and both seem to accept their spouse after being abandoned.
Eligio condemns his wife for having a relationship with Slawomir and then has a relationship with one of the authors. The ultimate paradoxical representation is presented in the last chapter when he spanks his wife after she returns to Mexico.
The comical action and the submissive behavior are contrary to both characters. Susana is in a relationship with Eligio, and at one point Susana tries to express herself openly about societal issues. Eligio then hits her as a means to control her due to his machismo on-look he learned from Mexico.
Many Latin American societies in the past set norms for women, and felt it was out of place that women talk back or give their opinion. Women did not have the right to express concerns about aspects that occurred within their society. The world has changed, and Latin American countries have to realize that. Women have to adapt their role within society as a means to survive where there is a need that they must work outside the home to help support the family. Culturally, countries get set in their ways and forget that the world is a different place than it was in the past.
Women, such as Susana, must be able to voice their opinion because they too can help a country to better economically just as men can.
It may be difficult for Eligio, and other men in Latin American countries to accept change, but women too our people that should be respected and that can have an impact. Feminism helps to argue women are not objects, and that they are people who deserve respect and have an impact in society.
- Navigation menu
In conclusion, the role of women is changing to meet the changes of a new and modernizing world, and Latin American countries must accept that. Literary significance and criticism[ edit ] In this book, the term " machismo " seems to be a territorial term. That is, it is only effective in certain situations and certain territories. After arriving to the United States, Susana seems to reverse roles; she gains more independence making her less dependable on Eligio.