Comments on: Reliability of Wikipedia Information Questionable

By: Should Wikipedia Introduce Flagged Revisions? | AccuraCast Search Daily News

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:44:07 +0000

[...] False information could have been prevented from appearing by locking certain articles to prevent edits, or by preventing unknown editors from editing. But, as Cade Metz points out, both these options are contrary to the principles on which Wikipedia is based. [...]

By: Premasagar

Premasagar — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:36:38 +0000

Mistakes on Wikipedia are correctable within seconds, due to the sheer mass of users involved. Compare that to mistaken reporting in mainstream media and traditional encyclopaedias…

By: AccuraCast

AccuraCast — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:36:28 +0000

The very nature of a site like Wikipedia makes it much easier for people to spread the false news.

While Wikipedia is no more at fault than any other newspaper whose reporters tell lies, it gets much more visibility online due to its high search rankings, which is why it’s important for visitors to take information posted on there with a pinch of salt.

By: Internet Esquire

Internet Esquire — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:29:10 +0000

Wikipedia has millions of contributors, and the fact that one of Wikipedia’s most trusted editors is a fraud, while embarrassing, does not make Wikipedia any less reliable than The New Yorker which also bought into the fraud. I’m curious why people keep ignoring that. See – http://blog.xodp.org/2007/03/putting-essjays-fraud-into-perspective.html -.

By: University Update

University Update — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:07:07 +0000

Reliability of Wikipedia Information Questionable…

…