Wikipedia is not an editing free-for-all. Every article is monitored by users who are notified any time an edit is made and have the ability to reverse it if necessary. Along with those patrols, teams of users that roam Wikipedia to verify new edits, and automated editing software, which routinely scans for and corrects bad edits, Wikipedia employs a cyber army devoted to identifying and eliminating deliberately harmful changes.
In fact, a PC Pro magazine study showed that errors inserted at random in a number of articles were corrected within minutes. In addition, Wikipedia has several authentication procedures designed to ensure that article content is as accurate as possible. Attributing claims to reliable, published sources is absolutely essential in order to verify all claims. Moreover, the introduction of new information in an article requires the consensus of all editors involved.
This practice prevents radical, unsubstantiated, and biased views from gaining ground. The real issue is that critics who attack Wikipedia curiously seem to indicate that because of its flaws, Wikipedia cannot be used as a serious research tool. But the first claim disregards the fact that Wikipedia can still be widely used for research purposes despite its inherent problems. By compiling current scholarship on formal and informal topics from proton decay which has not yet been experimentally verified to the approximate net worth of the Gundam franchise 50 billion yen , Wikipedia supplies knowledge on subjects at rates and quantities that no other encyclopedia or academic journal can possibly match.
In other words, Wikipedia provides information for which there is no traditional alternative. It should also be understood that a fact on Wikipedia is true insofar as the source associated with that fact is true.
Hence, facts can be verified by following the notes and references at the bottom of every article to sources that are commonly held to be authentic. While entries in other encyclopedias such as Britannica are written by thousands of expert contributors, Wikipedia achieves the same level of authenticity by forwarding readers to expert sources instead.
Where critics really go wrong is in failing to recognize the personal responsibility of every Wikipedia user. No researcher should take facts at face value. By consulting multiple independent resources, students avoid the risk of citing potentially incorrect information. Critics also mistake what sort of role Wikipedia should have as a reference source in the first place.
Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia merely supplies general information. Many professors discourage the direct citation of both Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias.
Those who add jokes or inappropriate lines to pages are suspended or often blocked from editing. This also goes for creating entire articles. Content issues are noted, edits are reviewed, and many pages are permitted to experts rather than anybody.
Is Wikipedia reliable? Of course. Ash Lopez. Soaring Down the Red Carpet. Yeehaw: A War Eagle Western. Love the Movies! Holiday New Music. Top 5 Best Christmas Movies to Watch. British Museum Responds to Its History. In the World of Celebrities. Podcast Review: Blackout. Impractical Jokers Show Review. Cancel reply. This is done to assure that the same person is not using different accounts with the same IP address, a possible sign of manipulation. Of course Wikipedia editors who want to game the system rotate their IP addresses using various tools, or by visiting different coffee shops and using their WiFi.
Note: Reputation X does not directly edit Wikipedia pages. We rely mainly on volunteers to make changes they personally feel have merit. Wikipedia editors we work with have total veto power over the edits they make, and for good reason. Their accounts are real and having them banned would be problematic. See this Wikipedia case study for more information. It is important to note that changes to Wikipedia must be rational, factual, and defensible. If an edit cannot honestly be defended it shouldn't be made in the first place.
But even if an edit is fully compliant with Wikipedia guidelines it can still be challenged or rolled back. Therefore, even if a significant edit is solid as a rock, it still shouldn't be made all at once. Often the best way to change a Wikipedia page is so simply soften the language bit by bit over time. Wikipedia has a name for this too - "whitewashing". Wikipedia whitewashing is a somewhat ill defined rule because one persons' whitewashing is another persons "balanced" edit.
The problem with this is human bias. Wikipedians are human, therefore imperfect and yet bold with their opinions. Humans have bias built-in. In our experience, Wikipedia editors tend to have a more liberal bias toward certain subjects. For example: if a company at one time had a negative environmental record but no longer does , the addition of positive current information to balance the Wikipedia record is often considered "white washing" and is deleted.
The people that do this seem to believe that a person or brand that has made a mistake in the past deserves a life sentence. When this happens the Wikipedia page become mere propaganda and degrades the mission of Wikipedia. The consensus among Wikipedia editors we have interviewed over the years is that there is little that can be done about this bias once the white washing label has been applied even if done so unfairly.
Because fairness is subjective. Shielded by anonymity, roll-backs, biased edits, and banishment are acts of aggression that can be done from the comfort of one's bathroom. One can engage in what's known as a " flame war " - basically a heated Wikipedia argument among editors - but like any argument it can be exhausting. Just try convincing someone to change their mind about the President of the United States. In our experience slow and steady wins the race.
It won't guarantee success, but it will significantly improve the odds of bringing balance and fairness back to a Wikipedia article. There are alternatives to Wikipedia as well, you can check them out here. How to fix an inaccurate or negative Wikipedia article. Wikipedia: Difficult to remove but other options exist It is nearly impossible to move a Wikipedia page down in search results because in order to do so stronger sites must be promoted to appear above it in search results.
That said, we do not recommend attempting to suppress Wikipedia. What is Journavism?
0コメント