Wikipedia... not a good resource..

[deco_martini]

I am no fan of Edwards, but currently independent confirmation of this is non-existent. That's why at first it wasn't allowed and then locked. The Enquirer refused to provide their evidence of the story.

 

[mike_s]

well typically they are a trash news organization, but every now and then they actually break a real story.

 

[reefduffer]

Well of course, if you want a really accurate and authoritative assesment of wikipedia's accuracy, check the wikipedia article about this: Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Warthaug]

Wikipedia is a great source on many topics. Most people tend to malign it when the facts it presents disagree with their preconceived notions or their non-fact based points of view.

And for them, there is conservapedia - facts are optional, but beliefs are required...

Bryan

 

[cmburch]

I have found WIKI informative.

The comments about graduate school professors not allowing WIKI seems strange since this may have been taught in High School and College long before Graduate School.

Grades 6-12 may allow encyclopedias and WIKI as references.

Or maybe the Graduate Professor also teaches undergrad and has run into the problem, so mentions it?

 

[Warthaug]

Makes you wonder why Wikipedia wouldn't let users add him being caught in a hotel room with his mistress....

Wikipedia finally allowed the content to be edited in (just 2 days ago), but only limited the scandal to a few lines. They then locked down the page so it couldn't be edited.


see
Wikipedia Disallows Any Mention of Alleged John Edwards Scandal | NewsBusters.org

Wikipedians Wrestle Over John Edwards Love-Child Rumor | Threat Level from Wired.com

Wikipedia John Edwards Page Now 'Protected' From Editing | NewsBusters.org

Gotta love your media sources "unbiased" reporting of the facts. Threads get locked all the time on wikipedia, for a range of reasons. In the case of John Edwards page this reason is outlined in black-and-white, before the article even begins:

"Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until August 6, 2008 because of repeated addition of possibly defamatory biographical material about living people by IP and new editors."

Or, in other words, posters had be writing defamatory material, and to protect their legal a$$, wikipedia removed that material and limited editorial input. Had they not taken this type of action, wikipedia could have been taken to court for defamation and/or libel.

And wikipedia's response follows their standard of a sliding scale of responses. Their first response - the one you're complaining about - was to lock the thread to give a "cool-down" period. After this cool-down perdiod posters continued post defamatory material, in direct contravention of wikipedias standing policy and US law. At which point wikipedia locked the thread to everyone except those who have proven that they can contribute without violating US law or wikipeidas standing rules.

Other reasons articles get locked are quite various, with the main reasons being legal issues - materials which could be considered defamatory or libelous, material which may have been copied from a copyrighted resouce, and so forth. Threads will also get locked (or specific users banned) if an "editorial war" is occuring, if a user is posting false or misleading material, if information is not verifiable, not neutral, and so forth.

So basically, your news sources are critisizing wikipedia for fufilling its legal requirments as set out by US law. And they also failed to note that the material which was removed was most likely illegal to publish in the USA and could have led to legal action against wikipedia.

Strange though, that your sources failed to mention those little tidbit...

Bryan

 

[mike_s]

I could understand that if they enforced that across the board, but I doubt they do....

 

[adurso]

I have taught high school, undergraduates, and in graduate programs before there was Wikipedia. I would not allow internet sources then, and would not now. Wikipedia is not primary material and is too limited in any case for a proper research paper.

With that said; my son who is at William and Mary has advised me that Wikipedia is just fine by the professors there....

 

[TishaDee]

Personally I like and use Wikipedia all the time, but as with anything else serious, if you've got anything riding on it (i.e a paper) you should always get a second opinnion by doing more research. I think it's a great jumping off point though and will usually get you off in other directions. But as my grandmother always tells me, believe none of what you hear, half of what you see and take a grain of salt with anything you read. Because everything (not just Wikipedia) is created by someone and everyone is capable of mistakes.

 

[Warthaug]

I could understand that if they enforced that across the board, but I doubt they do....

Ahh, denial - it isn't just a river in Africa...

Apparently you have a bone to pick with wikipedia. As a long-time contributer I've run into their systems on many an occasion, and if anything, they are overly vigorous in their controls. I suspect the system is largely automatic - I've been "burned" for quoting my own scientific works (ID's as a copyright violation), and had a thread I edited a few times in one day put into a "cool down period" simply because it was edited too many times in whatever time period they use as a threshold.

If you'd rather a "balanced" source that is quite vigorous in content regulation and ensures that all topics are equally weighted, maybe you should spend your time at conservapedia.

Bryan

Bryan