The Wikipedia paradox:Who's telling the truth

[Render]

People are less likely to trust a poorly written article if the visual cues suggest it comes from Wikipedia. Presented with the same information in an alternative layout, their trust will be greater. The presence of serious factual errors has little or no effect on the trust placed in a Wikipedia article, even among experts on the subject in question. People who take a negative view of Wikipedia are less good at estimating whether an individual article is trustworthy or not. These are among the findings of the doctoral research carried out by Teun Lucassen at the University of Twente's CTIT research institute. Lucassen investigated how internet users assess the reliability of online information. He will defend his doctoral dissertation on 1 March.

Before the advent of the internet, the situation was clearer: information that appeared in print was likely to be correct because it had been checked by an editor or a journalist. But in the age of the worldwide web, anyone can easily publish all kinds of information online, leaving the user with the challenge of determining how reliable it is.

http://phys.org/news...adox-truth.html

[Bonecrusher]

I've got a feeling I know why some people are distrustful of Wikipedia..

It could be they have seen some kind of asinine comment on a marginal subject.

Something on the lines of "Joe Bloggs woz ere".

They could be on some kind of quest to find other bits of silliness while ignoring something with intelligence.

So I believe this paradox could have all kinds of stuff getting past the radar.

I totally believe the credibility of this research unless it came straight from Wikipedia.

It's supposed to be a repository of facts so I've come up with a radical idea...

Why don't we have the guys submitting the stuff to Wikipedia paying for it.

It would stop Jimmy Wales having to beg for donations.

While at the same time stopping lowbrow wit and unsupported info.

Until then I worried about this stuff to do with dust mites having Ty's fur falling out..

Despite what I said about it being your friend it could also be your sworn enemy.

The Marlon Pack debacle is a case in point.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Medium Brown

[AsteroidX]

It depends on what information your pulling from Wikipedia. It many respects it is far more accurate then textbook history. You can follow the editors and changers to the mnauscripts per cite changed etc. So in that respect for being able to make an informed decision it has much merit. Itleast for me and what I use it for.

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, it's like I always say; they've only got themeselves to blame, with this "the Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" gimmick. Obviously, something of that size would rely on people submitting articles rather than having in all done by in-house editors, but why make it possible to alter articles when they're up? i've never understood the point of that. Or if they just checked the accuracy of articles before putting them up.

[Jinxdom]

That is the same concept for books. At least at wikipedia you can do something about an error quickly.(well depending on the subject) and it's an easy format to follow. Wikipedia depends on us to keep it correct. (The problem with democracy )

Always use more then one source. I try to go for at least 4 before I come to a hard locked opinion.(until new information gets discovered.)

[Orcseeker]

There are a lot of history books I've seen out there with quite a few flaws and false information within. Now if it were wikipedia it would be able to be corrected, if not debated for discussion.

[Keel M.]

Wikipedia bases it's entire premise on people being honest and we aren't an honest bunch.