Friday, March 16th 2007

Wikipedia falsely claims the death of Los Angeles entertainer

Recently, it seems like the encyclopedia anybody can edit, Wikipedia, has been getting a lot of bad press. Following the recent New Yorker interview fiasco where one of Wikipedia's chief editors blatantly lied about their identity, Wikipedia has been scrutinized on just about every one of their articles. Enough history. Wikipedia recently wrote that Los Angeles comedian Sinbad had died from a heart attack in their article on him. People started noticing Wikipedia's extreme error right after Sinbad started getting phone calls and e-mails asking where his funeral would be. Wikipedia has since fixed the article, locked it to editing, and hopes that everyone can forgive them. Incidents such as this make people wonder whether they should really trust Wikipedia as much as they probably do. This also brings the validity of Wikipedia as a source for, say, term papers and other school projects, into question.Source: The Inquirer
Add your own comment

7 Comments on Wikipedia falsely claims the death of Los Angeles entertainer

#1
jocksteeluk
the info on wikipedia should really only be taken as a rough guide since almost all of the info can be edited at any given time for any reason whatsoever.
Posted on Reply
#2
ex_reven
by: jocksteeluk
the info on wikipedia should really only be taken as a rough guide since almost all of the info can be edited at any given time for any reason whatsoever.
I disagree and agree somewhat.

Information can be edited by anyone, which is bad.
But wikipedia's policy for editing asks that the editor place sources of their information and a reason for why the source is more valid than a previously existing source.

Some dumbasses need to read the guidelines before they tamper with the encyclopedia :(
Posted on Reply
#3
Polaris573
Senior Moderator
by: zekrahminator
This also brings the validity of Wikipedia as a source for, say, term papers and other school projects in question.
No good term paper or other school project would cite an encyclopedia as a source, let alone Wikipedia. That's something people should have learned in high school. The only thing I use wikipedia for is a quick reference to remind of things I already knew, or to lookup something unimportant.
Posted on Reply
#4
anticlutch
by: ex_reven
I disagree and agree somewhat.

Information can be edited by anyone, which is bad.
But wikipedia's policy for editing asks that the editor place sources of their information and a reason for why the source is more valid than a previously existing source.

Some dumbasses need to read the guidelines before they tamper with the encyclopedia :(
Unless all of the other sources are biased already. Take, for example, Wikipedia's description of South Korea. Some idiot keeps editing it to say that most of Korea (both North and South) is actually part of China. This (and other stuff) really gets to me as China is forging history and no one is double checking to make sure. But enough of my ranting... Wikipedia is a good resource to use for most things (esp. stuff like Biology, since clear websites that get straight to the point are rather difficult to find on the web).
Posted on Reply
#5
ex_reven
by: anticlutch
Unless all of the other sources are biased already. Take, for example, Wikipedia's description of South Korea. Some idiot keeps editing it to say that most of Korea (both North and South) is actually part of China. This (and other stuff) really gets to me as China is forging history and no one is double checking to make sure. But enough of my ranting... Wikipedia is a good resource to use for most things (esp. stuff like Biology, since clear websites that get straight to the point are rather difficult to find on the web).
well yes, but technically ALL sources of information are biased.
as polaris says above, its acceptable to use wikipedia, but you need alot more sources to verify that the information you are using has no discrepencies. Something we learned last year in high school while working on an ancient assessment, we were not allowed to use internet sites as general sources, which was ok i guess since ancient rome has LOTS of valuable written sources.
Posted on Reply
#6
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Yeah..but there are mistakes in the encyclopedias and other media as well. Face it folks, no one is perfect. We try as best we can to get information as accurate as possible, but there are hundreds of factors that distract us and what not. I believe Wikipedia to be a damn good invention, as it were. ITs very useful and resources and quick on a search. While it wasnt around when I Was in highschool...alot of my information (which I put in my bibliography) were from encyclopedias, magazines, periodicals and a little from the internet (granted this was from 94 to 97). In fact, one of my sources from the World Book Encyclopedia (and parts from Brittanica, though Brittanica and another pedia contradicted half of the world book info) was wrong...to an extent. Needless to say, it created quite a stir in English/Literature Class and a nice long discussion with no work or speeches for the day :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#7
ex_reven
by: WarEagleAU
In fact, one of my sources from the World Book Encyclopedia (and parts from Brittanica, though Brittanica and another pedia contradicted half of the world book info) was wrong...to an extent. Needless to say, it created quite a stir in English/Literature Class and a nice long discussion with no work or speeches for the day :rockout:
I used to use world book and brittanica in primary school :) the software based encyclopedia though, not the hard copy. And I experienced the exact same contradicting or otherwise misleading information.
Posted on Reply