Jump to content

Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Wiki policy encourages unreliable articles

Because wiki policy calls for secondary sources rather than primary sources, additional sources of errors are introduced into the editorial process. Primary sources are not just useful for research; there are technical areas where the only reliable information is in the primary sources, e.g., reference manuals for computers.

Yes, there are lots of 3rd party books on computers, languages and operating system, but every one that I have read has had at least one serious error. I understand the issue of bias, but for technical topics the use of primary sources is essential if the articles are to be accurate. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKNO, this talk page is not the place to discuss your personal opinions of Wikipedia policies. If you have reliable sources to back up your claims, then we could discuss putting the claims in this article. If you wish to propose a change to the Wikipedia policy you mention, then your posting should go in Wikipedia talk:No original research. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes agreed wikipedia is very unreliable at times since anyone can edit the pages, most of the times pages tends to change due to too many different opinions, my source usually implys to just about every school I have been to, was one first things I was told at College/University, any other lecturer would say the same thing. This may be a worthwhile read: http://teachpaperless.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/wikipedia-dilemma.html --Ronnie42 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed capture

Editors faults, page 2. [1].--Vagrand (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It fails in both theory and practice

The sad fact is, that the wikipedia concept is one conducive to an intrinsic lack of reliability. The English language version is an auspicious display of ego over integrity, editorial elitism, and an anal retentive preference for "rules" and the personal bias of "Sr editors" over accuracy and the comprehensive nature of the information contained. Depending solely on sources which have been arbitrarily declared acceptable, and disallowing information based on the expertize of casual editors is a sure fire recipe for a lack of accuracy and reliability. Fact and the inclusion or exclusion of information by virtue of consensus and compromise is the ultimate in anti intellect, and unfortunately that is the core of the wikipedia model. Facts are neither subjective,nor determined by the one who can win the favor of the most editors to support a point of view, and the idea that this process will boil down through multiple correction and edits into a reliable information source is preposterous. A comedian once said, "The good thing about Wikipedia is anyone can edit it, but the really bad thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. I grew up with a TV producer. We were born the same year. Wikipedia had him born 3 years later. When I corrected the page I was told mine was "original research". I then cited ImD, and was told it was not a "reliable source". When last I checked, the wrong date is still on the page. Cosand (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments addressed the topic to which the talk page was attached, it was not a random expression of personal opinion. Cosand (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Prepare for error, and the error can be controlled. Unknown 11.39 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.158.57 (talk)

Amount of quality flaws

In a recent doctoral thesis [2] (M. Anderka, Analyzing and Predicting Quality Flaws in User-generated Content: The Case of Wikipedia, 2013), cleanup tags are employed to quantify the amount of human-tagged quality flaws in the English Wikipedia. Important findings are, among others:

... 26.86% of the English Wikipedia articles are tagged to contain at least one quality flaw, whereas 23.42% of the tagged flaws refer to a certain text fragment and 76.58% to the whole article. Furthermore, 50.1% of the tagged quality flaws concern article verifiability ...

The actual frequency of the flaws is even higher, it is likely that one out of five articles does not cite any references or sources.

Should this be mentioned in the article? NiPu (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Tags are not relevant to this article; what's important is Wikipedia's factual accuracy. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
And sadly the corelation between what ought to be tagged & what is tagged is relatively low, but you won't get that from running stats on the database. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems with citing the 2005 Nature study

As long as the fundamental articles in the chemistry and other basic areas are in as bad shape as they are—continuing in need of expert attention—anyone practicing in the fields can only sigh or laugh at this article, and its apparent self-affirming aims. In any case, we will not be sending students here to use the science materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are free to improve them, if you feel they are badly done. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who would want to edit them, if we are not paid to do so? Scientists won't even bother questioning the reliability of Wikipedia, they already knew how unreliable Wikipedia is. 119.237.27.87 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There are more than 77,000 active contributors working on more than 22,000,000 articles in 285 languages. As for reliability you are correct as per Wikipedia:General disclaimer "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here." That said Wikipedia can be a great tool and stepping stone for learning see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia for more info. -- Moxy (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Who would want to edit them, if we are not paid to do so? Um, people who want to make the sum of the world's knowledge available to everyone? People like the thousands of people who've been editing here since 2001? Nightscream (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
And people often contribute because they are genuinely interested a topic or genuinely motivated to bring knowledge to the public. That is the best motivation. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is way too long and dense

Just a heads up wiki people, but this guide is way, way to long for the average contributor to ever fathom.

If wiki is a sum of its parts, and ostensibly wants new blood, things like this are the rate limiting step.

Even I lost interest, and I came here looking for an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.217.198 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Unreliability of this article

I just noticed this article says, "Encyclopædia Britannica also argued that while the Nature study showed that the error rate between the two encyclopedias was similar..." but in the source (Britannica's repudiation of the Nature study) they vehemently deny this and criticise Nature for trumpeting a similar error rate in their heading while burying the one third more errors on Wikipedia's part:

While the heading proclaimed that “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries,” the numbers buried deep in the body of the article said precisely the opposite: Wikipedia in fact had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is confusingly written & will be very unclear to those who haven't read the originals, but EB start by quoting Nature as saying: "the difference in accuracy [between Britannica and Wikipedia] was not particularly great.” The original Nature article used to be online, and should be reffed directly. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
How's this? [3]

Encyclopædia Britannica also pointed out that while the Nature report claimed a similar error rate for both encyclopedias in its heading, Wikipedia in fact had a third more errors and its mistakes were more often the inclusion of incorrect facts, while the mistakes in Britannica were more often errors of omission, making "Britannica far more accurate than Wikipedia."

I think it's clearer. I've clarified that ED doesn't think the study shows similar error rates, and I've added the one third difference to their case for EB being "far more accurate." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. 162 vs 143 (was it) is not quite a third in fact. The whole thing got messy - see Nature's responses though you apparently now have to pay for the original article. I don't quite know why there is so much on it in the lead. I think the article is balanced - it doesn't for example trumpet the startling finding that American toxicologists thought WP less inaccurate than the FDA. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
You're not addressing my point. We say EB says that "the Nature study showed that the error rate between the two encyclopedias was similar." EB does not concede that. It explicitly takes issue with the claim the error rates are similar, pointing out that the study showed a significant dissimilarity. 166:123 (35%) is my count but I don't care if it's a third or not. I'm pointing out what they explicitly say about the "similar" claim - they explicitly repudiate the use of "similar" to characterise the error rates claimed by the study. We say they go along with the "similar" claim. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The article says "The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections." How is this "We say they go along with the "similar" claim"? Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
"Encyclopædia Britannica also argued that while the Nature study showed that the error rate between the two encyclopedias was similar..." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, removed from "while", which is not needed anyway [4]. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Wikipedia is not a reliable source considering i am changing it right now. If you are reading this do not trust Wikipedia, if not then it is reliable. The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, has been assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1] Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. An early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology,[7] pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology,[10] a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology[11] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012).[9] Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, so assessments of its reliability usually include examination of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[12] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[13] A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views."[14] Several incidents have also been publicized in which false information has lasted for a long time in Wikipedia. In May 2005, in the Wikipedia biography controversy, a user added several false and defamatory statements to the biographical article John Seigenthaler.[15] The inaccurate information went unnoticed until September 2005, when they were discovered by a friend of Seigenthaler. After the information was removed from Wikipedia, it remained for another three weeks on sites that mirror Wikipedia content.[16] A biographical article in French Wikipedia portrayed a "Léon-Robert de L'Astran" as an 18th-century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigation later determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin137 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of abbreviation

In the paragraph citing the "Guide to Military History on the Internet", is used the abbreviation "WP" (that I think refers to Wikipedia).

"When rating WP as the No. 1"

I believe that the abbreviation makes no sense in this context, as all the nearby references to Wikipedia use the full word.

To solve this problem, I suggest that someone that can edit the page replace "WP" with "Wikipedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.206.30 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Information Loop and Wikipedia Editors

More needs to be made of the information feedback loop as it relates to Wikipedia page editors. An information loop is also formed when a Wikipedia article become an authoritative source, usually on a relatively obscure topic. The content of the Wikipedia page is then disseminated by journalists, corporations, government employees, websites and others who consult Wikipedia without citation. This reinforces what was written in the original Wikipedia article. The editors of the Wikipedia page then cite these sources to defend the page against corrections, further edits and other points of view. This "Wikipedia loop" makes many articles on Wikipedia highly resistant to change, even if errors or disagreements exist. The loop also grows stronger over time. This is a powerful force and can be abused by dogmatic Wikipedia page editors who want to transform their view into "fact."--CaperBill (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In terms of internal Wikipedia policy, that is addressed by WP:MIRROR. However, I don't know offhand of any secondary sources that address this that could be cited in the article itself. Do you know of any? Nightscream (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not mirrors that I'm referring to. The "Wikipedia Loop" is much more subtle than that. For example, consider a Wikipedia page lists the origins of a geographical place name. The history of this name as stated on the Wikipedia page might be a complete fabrication, merely incorrect or just one among many competing origins. However, if the origins of that name appears as "fact" in Wikipedia, over time it starts to be reproduced in government tourist literature, websites of tourist operators, newspaper articles, municipal websites about the area and so on. If a government communications officer (who knows nothing about the topic) has to write a paragraph on the subject, they most likely turn to the Wikipedia article without citing it. It is important to note that only the "fact" is reproduced, not the whole article or any prose (so it is not a mirror). After this "fact" circulates to reliable sources it becomes self-reinforcing. Since it is impossible to prove any link between the Wikipedia article and those who silently draw upon it, these supporting references are as always viewed as valid. The Wikipedia page editor can then use these sources as a reference to defend their position and resist change.
A well meaning page editor might not even realize that there is a causal link between the article and the sources that have silently used it for research. Wikipedia can be extremely powerful in shaping discourse on many subjects. Unfortunately, because Wikipedia is "drawn on" infinitely more than it is "cited," the true influence of Wikipedia can never be measured. On relatively obscure topics, only sources older than the Wikipedia page were written by people who did not read the Wikipedia page in question.CaperBill (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, what you say is a valid potential problem, but like you said, how do we know that an external source that states the assertion in question derived it from Wikipedia, particularly in instances in which this is not explicitly disclosed? How do we know how pervasive this loop is? For my part, this is why I'm completely against the addition of unsourced material to articles, and tend to favor removing it, and not just the material that some say is "contentious", "controversial" or "likely to be challenged", since those criteria are completely subjective, and circular. Nightscream (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Historians have a similar problem. Each time a scribe copies a manuscript, inferences, folklore, and the authors own biases get layered on, to say nothing of mistranslations. It's a game of "telephone" played over thousands of years. I suspect this is where most thing on the List of common misconceptions come from. For Wikipedia editors, historians, (and any other researcher, for that matter) it's always best to go back to the primary source. --69.205.190.188 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Information loops is clearly a potential problem as news media more and more use WP as source for facts. That is one reason to be skeptical about news media as sources for WP content, also a reason not to include any unsourced material. I think that editors should only use news media as source when there is first-hand reporting, that is when journalists have gathered "primary data". --Erik den yngre (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem CaperBill describes has been informally dubbed "Citogenesis" and is depicted in this webcomic: http://xkcd.com/978/ See Talk:Wholphin#Grey Beast? for an actual case in which a bit of Wikipedia vandalism was repeated without credit in a book, and that book was later cited as a source for the vandalism. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This problem is becoming more pervasive as the influence of Wikipidia grows. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Languages of the World: An Introduction for a book from by a respecteded academic publisher, used as a textbook at major universities, that contains text copied from Wikipedia. Kanguole 08:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELF, archives, and this page

An editor recently reverted another editor here, citing two reasons. Both were applied incorrectly.

Regarding WP:SELF: The point is to avoid gratuitous or casual self-reference, so that any project fork or repackaged version or the like still makes good sense. An internal poll of Wikipedians regarding preferred web browsers, say, does not belong in an article on web browsers. But in this article, the point is to talk about Wikipedia itself. The only aspects of WP:SELF that applies is that we should talk about ourselves in the third person, so that the article makes sense if bodily lifted to somewhere else (say a book on the ups and downs of on-line collaboration in general), and perhaps certain technical details mentioned WP:itself should be applied.

Regarding archives: They were certainly created for internal use. What, exactly, is improper about using them for something else? Nothing whatsoever. For most articles, of course, one uses ordinary wikilinks to allow for updating of information. In this case, however, we definitely want the dated reference/information, and so should definitely link to the archived version. Choor monster (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As an example of correctly applying WP:SELF, my own inclusion of the Chihiro number hoax, as an example of something reaching the DYK page, was correctly reverted by another editor, who pointed out nobody outside WP seems to have noticed or cared, ergo, it's not notable. If down the road it achieves real-world notability, it can come back, along with appropriate internal references. Choor monster (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Liberal bias" section and "American and corporate bias" section. Oh the irony

It's ironic that the "American...bias" section immediately follows the section where the word Liberal is used in a very American sense. Can we get rid of this American bias please? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What wording would you suggest using to replace "liberal bias"? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
"Too great factual accuracy". --87.78.29.96 (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not a neutral wording. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
(laughing) --UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You could just call it a leftwing bias, thats what the rest of the world calls the left! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't there a separate article?

The liberal extreme liberal bias is inherent in Wikipedia, and I believe it was designed that way. Look at the "you guys figure it out" mentality concerning definitions of words like "reliable source" and "notable." In practice this leads to a few editors being allowed to control given pages because they, though "consensus"(i.e., majority rules), get to define these words, and usually they are liberals. I've seen even major media outlets like Reason.com and the National Review described as "unreliable." Since most of the politics-related articles are simply lists of "this person has this opinion," it becomes paramount to determine whose opinion is "notable" and whose isn't. Because most of Wikipedia is written by liberals, and because it is, it is mostly the opinions of the liberals that are considered "notable." Just look at a typical politics article, ask yourself how many of these opinions are those of liberals, probably about 90%. And they are mostly one type of liberal. The fact that there is not a separate article for Wikipedia political bias(this article is mostly about factual inaccuracy, which is not the same as systemic bias), but there is an article for "genderfuck," is just one more example of liberal bias. Why isn't there a separate article, why is there not more than a few paragraphs? Undoubtedly much has been written about it, but because liberals get to control the definition of the words "reliable" and "notable," that stuff isn't reliable and notable! This is why I feel that editing Wikipedia is a waste of time.Train Trane (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There isn't another article with a title containing "political bias" - political bias itself is a red link - or one generally about bias in Wikipedia. Maybe those should come first. Peter James (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting point (but possibly off-topic here), and similar but less newsworthy problems appear elsewhere... believe it or not, some of us find a particular POV evident in chemistry articles! And if Wikipedia had been around in the era of Galileo I guess he'd have been called a pseudoscientist. But the Wikipedia we have is far better than nothing, that's why I edit, and I guess why you do too. See WP:creed. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Not really. Galileo was a very well-known and respected figure who had moved smoothly between teaching posts at two top universities before he became "controversial" in his fifties, and he always had a large proportion of contemporary opinion behind him. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Well... we do seem to regard the IUPAC Gold Book as a not-so-reliable source. So it would have depended on whether that large proportion of contemporary opinion was regarded as reliable by the Wikipedians of the day. Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you may be looking for Conservapedia. The use of the term "extreme liberal bias" says rather more about you than about Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Banned in schools?

I happened to come across this from early 2011 and was somewhat surprised. Are some schools still banning Wikipedia? It would be interesting to know if the ban is still continuing, and how widespread it is. The article does mention a ban that started in 2007. I does not state if it is still in effect, and how widespread it is. Does any one have any more information to add to that section? History2007 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my niece's school bans it currently. So did the high school my kids attended. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Why? HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Her/their instructors do/did not believe it provides accurate information sufficient for scholarly research. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a great jumping stone for researching....put it simply its a great place to start. See Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia for more info. See also Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. -- Moxy (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as a high school teacher that's precisely what I tell my students. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times: Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information

  • Cohen, Noam (October 26, 2014). "Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information". The New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2014.

Might be a useful source for use in this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-storm

I recently came across this from a couple of years ago about U.S. American colleges offering their students college credit, I A) don't know the reliability of the paper and B) question if this ever happened and if so ¿what did administrators do against it? (as it would be college-funded bias that might harm the reliability of this site), anyhow this can be a non-sensical article by some content farm to get headlines, anyhow ¿is this paper correct and were these programmes eventually condemned if they ever existed? Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there are much more both feminist and college projects:

And more. But I don;t understand how this is related to article subject. Do you have any reliable sources which suggest that such efforts must be condemned? I understand that giving credits for writing wikipedia articles may seem to be dangerously close to WP:COI, but I don't remember this claim discussed in the media (or in WP). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if it ever happened, and if it's considered to be harmful for the reliability, I'm a Socialist but I would never re-write any economic theories on Wikipedia to fit my ideology. Anyhow I was asking if it would be condemned.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for a case study

I'm aware that there exist a bunch of studies on the spread of misinformation online (e.g., 1, 2 and 3). And Wikipedia's revision history offers a lot to answer various research questions. Here I suggest an interesting case for analysis. The incident involves a set of mysterious flags (A, B and C). I think it deserves in-depth analysis for the following reasons:

  1. A wide circulation. These images have persisted for more than a decade (this file was uploaded in 2004 but there might be earlier copies). Before I started taking action on April 2, 2015, they appeared at literally thousands of pages of Commons, Wikidata, multiple Wikipedias and a Wiktionary.
  2. Images as a loophole of verificability checking. Wikipedia has stressed verifiability, but these images have slipped though the checks.
  3. Diffusion by translation. English Wikipedia serves as the hub while other Wikipedias act as spokes. The translators did not validate the reliability of English articles.
  4. Language barrier hampers correction. This is a Japan-related topic. Almost all sources are written in Japanese. Even though Japanese Wikipedians identified misinformation seven years ago (ja:ノート:琉球王国#琉球国旗について), they failed to contain misinformation globally.

--Nanshu (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be a poor case study, as Nanshu labels the flags as a "Wikipedia hoax". For them to meet this label, they would need to have been created on Wikipedia with the intent to trick others, which is not the case. This source from 1854 shows that one of the images has "persisted" for at least 161 years, while the other two existed since at least 1946. These flags were not created on Wikipedia and are therefore not "Wikipedia hoaxes". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe these "mysterious" Ryukyu flags would indeed be a good case study. The inclusion in 2013 of a fictitious Tibetan flag on the List of Chinese flags by a one-time user blocked as a sockpuppet a week earlier on commons is another good case study regarding invented flags. The flag, created in 2011 based on an illustration appearing on a chocolate manufacturer collector card (with no mention that it would related to a Tibetan flag), rose suspicions a few days after its creation, but made its way into wikipedia projects in different languages and remained for one and half year on the English wikipedia until I removed it a few days ago. Hoax, test, or simple ignorance? It is difficult to assess, but it shows that we do have some serious reliability issues at WP, and that it is always easier and faster to add than to remove ivented content.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Trivial little example for a case study

In the spirit of the above discussion, let me refer anyone interested in this sort of stuff to Alfred Wolmark, Warsaw-born 1877, British raised and lived until he died in 1961, famous painter in his day, mostly forgotten since, just a stub article. His middle name is "Aaron", but this is rarely written out. So when about seven months ago someone looked up his obituary in The Times and found "Alfred Aaran Wolmark", he put that in the article. I recently confirmed the typo is there in the obituary. Since showing up in WP, it has been widely copied. I have recently fixed it (with RS) and too many ridiculous footnotes in case someone really really tries to put the typo back. I mean, you'd think this was Elvis Presley. Choor monster (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Other false information

I propose adding the following content, based on recent sources, to the section "Other false information", which currently breaks off in 2013.

In February 2015, a longstanding Wikipedia administrator was site-banned after Wikipedia's arbitration committee found that he or she had, over a period of several years, manipulated the content of Wikipedia articles to add positive content and remove negative content about the controversial Indian Institute of Planning and Management and its dean, Arindam Chaudhuri. An Indian journalist commented in Newsweek on the importance of the Wikipedia article to the institute's PR campaign and voiced the opinion that "by letting this go on for so long, Wikipedia has messed up perhaps 15,000 students' lives".[1][2]

In March 2015, an article titled "Jar'Edo Wens" (believed to be a riff on the name "Jared Owens") was reported to be the longest-lasting Wikipedia hoax discovered to date. The article, which purported to be about an Australian aboriginal deity, had lasted nine years and nine months on Wikipedia, and spawned mentions of the fake god on numerous other websites as well as in an academic book titled Atheism and the Case Against Christ.[3][4][5]

Declaration of competing interests: I am (1) quoted in some of the cited press sources, and (2) am a volunteer moderator on the Wikipediocracy website mentioned in some of the press articles. Best regards, Andreas JN466 12:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html
  2. ^ http://scroll.in/article/714291/Wikipedia-bans-editor-for-consistent-bias-in-favour-of-Arindam-Chaudhuri's-IIPM
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/04/15/the-great-wikipedia-hoax/
  4. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/aussies-jaredo-wens-prank-sets-new-record-as-wikipedias-longestrunning-hoax-20150323-1m59c7.html
  5. ^ http://internet.gawker.com/how-one-man-made-himself-into-an-aboriginal-god-with-wi-1692426415

Bias

This article is clearly biased in favour of Wikipedia (or at least the header paragraphs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see the "POV issues" section above. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's biased in favour of Wikipedia. You don't think it'll say 'Wikipedia is quite inaccurate and should be avoided' right on their own sight, now do you! I agree it's not right, though. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

USA bias

Can we have more about American Protectionism here, as we all know Wikipedia likes to print USA version of things only.

Great example being game of Football wich is played by 7 billion people with the name of "Football", but is presented in wikipedia as "association football" or "soccer", names that just don't exist to those 7 Billion people.

It's clear that biased people are writing things like these, there's also strong believe that NFL is paying wikipedia for the name change.

02:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC) If there's Lies, why would anyone donate to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.211.61 (talk)

Do you have any reliable sources that mention the claims of bias you are talking about? If so, I can look into putting these sources into the article. If not, these claims are original research which is not supposed to be found in Wikipedia articles. Also, please be careful not to use this talk page as a forum to discuss your personal opinions about Wikipedia. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It ain't easy. I live in a city where four different sports known as football to (at least some of) their fans are played professionally. At least two others are played by enthusiasts. The one our IP loves is not the most popular. To call it football in my city would be quite inappropriate. Unique identifying names are the best. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not think the "NFL is paying wikipedia" type statement even deserves attention. That would be the day... And the 7 billion people are not English speakers by the way, and per WP:Commonname it is the usage in the US/UK/Australia/etc. that matters for English Wikipedia. What the game is called in Germany has no value for English Wikipedia, but it has for German Wikipedia. And the encyclopedic content does not get affected by minor naming issues anyway. History2007 (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
If the NFL is paying, why is the sport also called Soccer in Australia? (We really don't care much about the NFL here?) HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Its called soccer in Australia because they called Ozy rules football football. You are really just supporting the idea that wikipedia is US biased by not knowing that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually think this whole thread does not merit much discussion, and the NFL claim is just empty. Let us just move on. History2007 (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it's 'Aussie Rules Football' not Ozy. Wow. I can't help but agree that the NFL claim is a bit out of place. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's accuracy

See [5] where an interesting article on Wikipedia's accuracy is found -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy vs Wikipedia

http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipedia-can-only-dream-of/ might be relevant. CFCF 💌 📧 15:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Gender Problems Removal

I think we should talk about adding that back. All biases go towards the reliability of Wikipedia. Is there a valid reason to remove it? Kude90 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The removed text, visible here, didn't actually say anything about reliability, which I understand as roughly synonymous with "accuracy". There's a section on gender bias under Criticism of Wikipedia, which is certainly proper, as the gender bias of contributors may affect Wikipedia's comprehensiveness. But it's not clear to me that a gender bias among contributors would reduce reliability, and I'm not aware of any reliable source that suggests it does. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Reliability of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Example removed

I removed the following piece:

  • In May 2014 a review officer of the United Kingdom's tax collection agency HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) used Wikipedia as a reference for defining electromechanical switches in a tax tribunal case involving the British company RJS Electronics, and again in May 2015 in response to an appeal by RJS.[1] The use of Wikipedia by HMRC as a source of legal definition was subsequently criticised by lawyers for RJS.[2][3]

on the following grounds:

  • (1) blogpost and contractorweekly are not legal experts. They misrepresented the case in a sensationalist way. The court document clearly shows that
    • (a) Wikipedia was not the only source; it also considered a def from OED
    • (b) wikipedia def was basically the same as in OED
    • (c) wikppiedia was cited not because of negligence or laziness, but because, as this layers stated, the legal standards documents simply lack the coverage of the issue, therefore broader perspective was considered, and it was not based solely on wikipedia.
  • (2) This piece adds nothing new, because reliability of wikipedia here was not challenged in a novel way; in fact, by a kinda "circular logic" the criticism was referring to wikipedia itself disclaiming itself. 20:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j8847/TC04870.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/blog-post/2447690/taking-stock-hmrc-turns-to-wikipedia-in-its-search-for-answers
  3. ^ http://contractorweekly.com/contractor-news/tax-a-ir35-news/1304-hmrc-used-wikipedia-as-authority

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reliability of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did the Taharrush article have a misleading name change?

Taharrush does not just happen in Egypt.

Why was the name of the article changed, in an intentionally misleading way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.88.239 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian revisionism and irredentism in Wikipedia

There are obvious actions of some nationalists from Hungary against the pages of some countries around Hungary. Nationalist editors like Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Norden attacked several times the history pages of other countries. They act like a gang and impose only references they accept. Being a gang it is difficult to act against them. Their tactics: 1. Erasing texts and references of dead authors (until 1990) in the pages of surrounding countries. But they do not respect the same rule in the pages about Hungarian history; 2. Erasing the texts and references of authors that have an original theory (singular authors). But they do not respect the same rule in the pages about Hungarian history; 3. Erasing texts and references of authors that contradict Hungarians authors. They erase any text creating the impression of majority. 4. Erasing texts and references because there were 3-4 references and one was too old. 5. Erasing texts and references because editors Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Norden do not like a phrase or the content.

This kind of actions show that a gang of editors may disturb and construct false data about the history of countries surrounding Hungary. It looks like a politics of Hungarians revisionists. Administrators say they do not want to interfere.

False data and biased data made Wikipedia an unreliable source. More and more institutions avoid data from this source according to American and British journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.128.24 (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of anonymous editing and false information

What really annoys me about this oft-used argument is the fact that people assume Wikipedia articles are a bubble with no other information. They say that an anonymous editor can swoop in and vandalize an article, and use that as evidence that Wikipedia isn't reliable. They forget about the tools Wikipedia has:

  • Version Control - seen in the history section of every article, is immutable to everyone except the system itself. Vandalizing the revision history is impossible
  • Discussion Forum - people can dispute controversial or otherwise discussion-worthy topics here.
  • The "Recent changes" page - a special page that shows recent edits throughout all of Wikipedia.
  • Admin Tools - admins work around the clock and are given the privilege of edit-blocking IP addresses who are known for vandalism.
  • Citations - every article is required to have its sources cited, and citations are routinely reviewed by other editors.

These tools are here to keep Wikipedia high quality, and no matter how obscure the article you vandalise, an admin will see it. It is also a researcher's responsibility to check all of the information available. For example, it would be trivial to go into the revision history and pull up a revision of the article, rather than the article itself. A revision is immutable and will never change.

These tools are similar to Software Version Control, which typically includes things like bug/issue tracking and commit history, if we're talking about a centralized hub, such as gitlab. Discussion is analogous to issue tracking, as a problem with the article may be raised there and dealt with before someone goes and makes the edit. Revision history is analogous to commit history, as revisions, like commits, are immutable, and show information about who made it, when it was made, how much was changed (bytes added or removed), the differences (git diff), an edit summary (commit message), etc.

Those tools have been used for decades by professional and freelance software engineers alike to ensure high quality software. So why wouldn't the same thing apply to an encyclopedia moderated by (as of this post) 1,304 admins who work around the clock to keep the site running smoothly?

Those are my thoughts. 71.210.224.108 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You've written an interesting essay of your opinions, which includes things that most people with experience in reading or editing Wikipedia are aware of. Do you have any reliable sources to back up those opinions that might change how the article is written? Sundayclose (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Reliability of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reliability of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reliability of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Bicholim conflict

On the picture for the Bicholim conflict, I saw this photo of the hoax article. However, inside the picture of that article, I saw another picture with the inscription:"Chapel of St. Catherine, built in Old Goa during the Portuguese occupation. Not to be confused with Cathedral of Santa Catarina, also in Old Goa. Does this photo still exist on Wikimedia, by any chance? If so, provide the link. Also, try to archive the original page. Thanks in advance! Charizardmewtwo (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Academia

So much for reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.14.83 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

A proposal to change the following sentence:

Original Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[7] toxicology,[8] oncology,[9] pharmaceuticals,[10] and psychiatry[11] compared Wikipedia to professional and peer reviewed sources and found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard.

Proposed edit Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[7] toxicology,[8] oncology,[9] pharmaceuticals,[10] and psychiatry[11] on Wikipedia were compared to professional and peer reviewed sources and found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard.

WikiEdit1267 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Changed to:

Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology, pharmaceuticals, and psychiatry were compared to professional and peer reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard.

Anup [Talk] 21:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposal regarding citation quality and the reliability of sources

Greetings to everyone concerned about the reliability of sources used in the Wikipedia. For the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, I have created a proposal that addresses some aspects of this called "Citation quality assessment". Please check it out, and consider giving the proposal your support in the two-week voting period beginning November 28 (Monday). Any ideas to improve upon the proposal are also very much welcome. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

207.74.23.208 (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

this is the best website you can get bad information from

 Not done-Please provide WP:RS covering the statement you wish to be included.This is one hell of a request.Light❯❯❯ Saber 17:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

TEDx Talk

I believe this TEDx Talk needs to be added with verification to its claims: <redacted>--AllyUnion (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

link removed per WP:ELNEVER Jytdog (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Reliability of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jar'Edo Wens

Since the change is a little more complex than "please change x to y" I will not file a proper semi-protection change request for this one:

"Jar'Edo Wens" is already mentioned at "Other false information", yet is also duplicated under "Conflicts involving Wikipedia policy makers", where it appears misplaced. There is also at least one common source which appears redundant.

In March 2015, it became known that an article on Wikipedia entitled "Jar'Edo Wens", purportedly about an Australian aboriginal deity of that name, was a hoax. The article had survived for more than nine years before being deleted, making it the longest-lived documented hoax article in Wikipedia's history.
In March 2015, an article titled "Jar'Edo Wens" (probably a play on the name "Jared Owens") was reported to be the longest-lasting Wikipedia hoax discovered to date. The article, which purported to be about an Australian aboriginal deity, had lasted nine years and nine months on Wikipedia, and spawned mentions of the fake god on numerous other websites as well as in an academic book titled Atheism and the Case Against Christ.

I would suggest to merge them both under the "Other false information" section (or a future hoaxes section):

In March 2015, it became known that an article on Wikipedia entitled "Jar'Edo Wens", purportedly about an Australian aboriginal deity of that name, was a hoax. The article had survived for more than nine years before being deleted, making it the longest-lived documented hoax article in Wikipedia's history. The article spawned mentions of the fake god on numerous other websites as well as in an academic book titled Atheism and the Case Against Christ.

Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I can now edit semi-protected articles so have done the change. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased and everybody knows it

This discussion was started by IPsock "195.142.50.207" of "Human like you" evading indef block.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia is BIASED and everybody knows it. The cause is some of the naughty naughty super admins who take pleasure from power trips. Let alone the administration of the Wikipedia Fund who are certainly partial. 195.142.50.207 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw in this edit you link to mediabiasfactcheck.com. Their report on Wikipedia calls it "least biased". Now, I haven't seen enough to trust that site, but just saying if you trust it to give information about one source, what leads you to not trust its rating of Wikipedia?
Wikipedia articles must adhere to a neutral point of view. If you find articles for which this is not the case, you are welcome to contribute, and/or to be more specific on talk pages about the bias you see. = paul2520 13:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Please also note that this talk page is not a forum to discuss the topic, but a place to discuss specific improvements to the article (see WP:FORUM). Thanks,  -- ]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR ═╣ 16:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Think before you copy-paste!

Wikipedia is the most reliable encyclopedia on the internet, things that I could not find elsewhere, I founded here.

Wikipedia is the best source of information, but people should not blindly accept 100% of what is written in every article as truth.

Absorb the knowledge in Wikipedia, but think about what is true and what mistakes have been made in that article, Wikipedia is not the "word of god" and blindly copy-pasting before thinking first could result you to be humiliated in a school presentation, for example if you are a student.

I have ecountered many mistakes on Wikipedia, they are most oftenly insignificant and not large, I aknowledge that mistakes are normal as mistakes can be found even in highly-esteemed scientific books. Mistakes are inevitable in Wikipedia and they should be minimized as much as possible.

Wikipedia has less mistakes than Encyclopedia Britannica and the amount of information on a average single article I receive as a user on Encyclopedia Britannica is equivalent to the statement in Wikipedia "this article is a stub, help improve it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is not a forum to discuss the subject but intended to discuss improvements to the article. I mostly agree with you and the article already mentions critical analysis and critical thinking development, which are important in many fields, but indeed very useful when using Wikipedia, just like you suggested. Thanks for your comment, —PaleoNeonate - 20:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"Adjunct full professor" oxymoron

On 2018-02-22, I read, "Geoffrey Nunberg, an adjunct full professor at UC Berkeley's School of Information, ... ." I'm deleting the word "full", because it appears to conflict with "adjunct", and the Wikipedia article on Nunberg says he's an adjunct professor. Moreover, I cannot find "full" in that article.

The Wikipedia article on "Adjunct professor" says it is "an academic rank below the highest level of professorship. For example, adjuncts are non-tenure-track faculty in the U.S. and in Canada."

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article on "Professor (highest academic rank)" says the term is "informally also known as full professor". DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

i think you should not dis Wikipedia ON Wikipedia i mean like you are dissing your self how do you think that helps you him is does not so don't dis your self. Liamsearles277 (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reliability_of_Wikipedia/Archive_3&oldid=1074059756"