Propagation of misinformation Reliability of Wikipedia

1 propagation of misinformation

1.1 other
1.2 removal of false information
1.3 susceptibility bias

1.3.1 individual bias , wikiscanner tool
1.3.2 coverage

1.3.2.1 notability of article topics
1.3.2.2 liberal bias
1.3.2.3 american , corporate media bias




1.4 reliability source in other contexts
1.5 broad opinions
1.6 tools testing reliability of articles

propagation of misinformation

somewhat related information loop , perhaps more worrisome, propagation of misinformation other websites (answers.com 1 of many) quote misinformation wikipedia verbatim, , without mentioning has come wikipedia. piece of misinformation taken wikipedia article live on in perhaps dozens of other websites, if wikipedia has deleted unreliable material.

other

in 1 article, information today (march 2006) likens comparisons between wikipedia , britannica apples , oranges :

even revered encyclopædia britannica riddled errors, not mention subtle yet pervasive biases of individual subjectivity , corporate correctness... there no 1 perfect way. britannica seems claim there is. wikipedia acknowledges there s no such thing. librarians , information professionals have known this. s why consult multiple sources , counsel our users same.

jonathan sidener of san diego union-tribune wrote vandalism , self-serving misinformation [are] common particularly in political articles .

andrew orlowski, columnist register, expressed similar criticisms in 2005, writing use of term encyclopedia describe wikipedia may lead users believing more reliable may be.

bbc technology specialist bill thompson wrote wikipedia entries written , submitted in faith, , should not let contentious areas such politics, religion or biography shape our view of project whole , forms starting point serious research that:

no information source guaranteed accurate, , should not place complete faith in can undermined through malice or ignorance... not devalue project entirely, means should skeptical wikipedia entries primary source of information... same search engine results. because comes in top 10 on msn search or google not automatically give credibility or vouch accuracy or importance.

thompson adds observation since popular online sources inherently unreliable in way, 1 byproduct of information age wiser audience learning check information rather take on faith due source, leading better sense of how evaluate information sources .

the supreme court of india in judgment in commr. of customs, bangalore vs. acer india pvt. (citation 2007(12)scale581) has held have referred wikipedia, learned counsel parties relied thereupon. online encyclopaedia , information can entered therein person , such may not authentic.

in 2007 guide military history on internet, simon fowler rated wikipedia best general resource military history research, , stated results largely accurate , free of bias . when rating wikipedia no. 1 military site mentioned wikipedia criticised inaccuracy , bias, in experience military history articles spot on.

in july 2008, economist magazine described wikipedia user-generated reference service , noted wikipedia s elaborate moderation rules put limit acrimony generated cyber-nationalism.

jimmy wales, co-founder of wikipedia, stresses encyclopedias of type not appropriate primary sources, , should not relied upon being authoritative.

carnegie mellon professor randy pausch offered following anecdote in book last lecture. surprised entry world book encyclopedia on virtual reality accepted without question, concluded, believe wikipedia fine source information, because know quality control real encyclopedias.

removal of false information

fernanda viégas of mit media lab , martin wattenberg , kushal dave of ibm research studied flow of editing in wikipedia model, emphasis on breaks in flow (from vandalism or substantial rewrites), showing dynamic flow of material on time. sample of vandalism edits on english wikipedia during may 2003, found such acts repaired within minutes, summarizing:

we ve examined many pages on wikipedia treat controversial topics, , have discovered have, in fact, been vandalized @ point in history. ve found vandalism repaired extremely quickly—so users never see effects.

they stated impossible find crisp definition of vandalism .

lih (2004) compared articles before , after mentioned in press, , found externally referenced articles of higher quality work.

an informal assessment popular magazine pc pro 2007 article wikipedia uncovered tested wikipedia introducing 10 errors varied between bleeding obvious , deftly subtle articles (the researchers later corrected articles had edited). labeling results impressive noted 1 noted , fixed within hour, , wikipedians tools , know-how our team. second series of 10 tests, using far more subtle errors , additional techniques conceal nature, met similar results: despite our stealth attempts vast majority... discovered remarkably quickly... ridiculously minor jesse james error corrected within minute , slight change queen anne s entry put right within 2 minutes . 2 of latter series not detected. article concluded wikipedia corrects vast majority of errors within minutes, if re not spotted within first day chances... dwindle re relying on spot errors while reading article rather reviewing edits .

a study in late 2007 systematically inserted inaccuracies wikipedia entries lives of philosophers. depending on how data interpreted, either 1 third or 1 half of inaccuracies corrected within 48 hours.

a 2007 peer-reviewed study measured actual number of page views damaged content concluded:

42% of damage repaired immediately, i.e., before can confuse, offend, or mislead anyone. nonetheless, there still hundreds of millions of damaged views.

loc vu-quoc, professor mechanical , aerospace engineering @ university of florida, stated in 2008 errors may go years without being corrected experts don t read wikipedia articles in own field correct these errors .

susceptibility bias
individual bias , wikiscanner tool

in august 2007, wikiscanner, tool developed virgil griffith of california institute of technology, released match anonymous ip edits in encyclopedia extensive database of addresses. news stories appeared ip addresses various organizations such central intelligence agency, democratic congressional campaign committee, diebold, inc. , australian government being used make edits wikipedia articles, of opinionated or questionable nature. bbc quoted wikimedia spokesperson praising tool: value transparency , scanner takes level. wikipedia scanner may prevent organization or individuals editing articles re not supposed to.

the wikiscanner story covered independent, stated many censorial interventions editors vested interests on variety of articles in wikipedia had been discovered:

[wikipedia] hailed breakthrough in democratisation of knowledge. online encyclopedia has since been hijacked forces decided things best left unknown... website designed monitor editorial changes made on wikipedia has found thousands of self-serving edits , traced them original source. has turned out hugely embarrassing armies of political spin doctors , corporate revisionists believed censorial interventions had gone unnoticed.

not hailed wikiscanner success wikipedia. oliver kamm, in column times, argued instead that:

the wikiscanner important development in bringing down pernicious influence on our intellectual life. critics of web decry medium cult of amateur. wikipedia worse that; province of covert lobby. constructive course stand on sidelines , jeer @ pretensions.

wikiscanner reveals conflict of interest when editor not have wikipedia account , ip address used instead. conflict of interest editing done editors accounts not detected, since edits anonymous everyone—except handful of privileged wikipedia admins.

coverage

wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, general nature leads, without conscious intention, propagation of various prejudices. although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor, indeed trivial, factual errors in wikipedia articles, there concerns large-scale, presumably unintentional effects increasing influence , use of wikipedia research tool @ levels. in article in times higher education magazine (london) philosopher martin cohen frames wikipedia of having become monopoly prejudices , ignorance of creators , describes youthful cab-drivers perspective. cohen s argument, however, finds grave conclusion in these circumstances: control reference sources people use control way people comprehend world. wikipedia may have benign, trivial face, underneath may lie more sinister , subtle threat freedom of thought. freedom undermined sees matters on wikipedia, not sources support of community .

critics point tendency cover topics in detail disproportionate importance. example, stephen colbert once mockingly praised wikipedia having longer entry on lightsabers on printing press . in interview guardian, dale hoiberg, editor-in-chief of encyclopædia britannica, noted:

people write of things re interested in, , many subjects don t covered; , news events covered in great detail. in past, entry on hurricane frances more 5 times length of on chinese art, , entry on coronation street twice long article on tony blair.

this critical approach has been satirised wikigroaning , term coined jon hendren of website awful. in game, 2 articles (preferably similar names) compared: 1 acknowledged serious or classical subject , other popular topic or current event. defenders of broad inclusion criteria have held encyclopedia s coverage of pop culture not impose space constraints on coverage of more serious subjects (see wiki not paper ). ivor tossell noted:

that wikipedia chock full of useless arcana (and did know, way, article on debate shorter piece weighs relative merits of 1978 , 2003 versions of battlestar galactica?) isn t knock against it: since can grow infinitely, silly articles aren t depriving serious ones of space.

wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of voluntary nature, , of reflecting systemic biases of contributors. former nupedia editor-in-chief larry sanger stated in 2004, when comes relatively specialized topics (outside of interests of of contributors), project s credibility uneven. in gamesradar editorial, columnist charlie barrat juxtaposed wikipedia s coverage of video game-related topics smaller content topics have greater real-world significance, such god, world war ii , former u.s. presidents.

wikipedia has been praised making possible articles updated or created in response current events. editors have argued that, website, wikipedia able include articles on greater number of subjects print encyclopedias can.

a 2011 study reported evidence of cultural bias in wikipedia articles famous people on both english , polish wikipedias. these biases included pertaining cultures of both united states , poland on each of corresponding-language wikipedias, pro-u.s./english-language bias on both of them.

notability of article topics

wikipedia s notability guidelines, used editors determine if subject merits own article, , application thereof, subject of criticism. nicholson baker considers notability standards arbitrary , unsolvable:

there quires, reams, bales of controversy on constitutes notability in wikipedia: nobody ever sort out.

criticizing deletionists , baker writes:

still, lot of work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder people have narrow, grade-schoolish notion of sort of curiosity on-line encyclopedia able satisfy in years come. [...] s harder improve s written, or write altogether new, many of world book-sanctioned encyclopedic fruits long plucked. there people on wikipedia bullies, take pleasure in wrecking , mocking peoples work—even point of laughing @ nonstandard engrish . poke articles full of warnings , citation-needed notes , deletion prods till topics go away.

another criticism deletionists is: increasing difficulty of making successful edit; exclusion of casual users; slower growth—all hallmarks of deletionists approach.

complaining own biography on verge of deletion lack of notability, timothy noah argued that:

wikipedia s notability policy resembles u.s. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement. notable, wikipedia topic must subject of multiple, non-trivial published works sources reliable , independent of subject , of each other. although have written or been quoted in such works, can t ve ever been subject of any. , wouldn t know, notability cop cruised past bio , pulled me over. unless notable in hurry—win nobel peace prize? prove sired anna nicole smith s baby daughter?—a sysop (volunteer techie) wipe wikipedia page clean. s straight out of philip k. dick.

in same article, noah mentions pulitzer prize-winning writer stacy schiff not considered notable enough wikipedia entry before wrote extensive new yorker article on wikipedia itself.

a 2014 study found no correlation between characteristics of given wikipedia page academic , academic s notability determined citation counts. metrics of each wikipedia page examined included length, number of links page other articles, , number of edits made page. study found wikipedia did not cover notable isi highly cited researchers properly.

liberal bias

according jimmy wales: wikipedia community diverse, liberal conservative libertarian , beyond. if averages mattered, , due nature of wiki software (no voting) don t, wikipedia community more liberal u.s. population on average, because global , international community of english speakers more liberal u.s. population. there no data or surveys that. number of politically conservative commentators have argued wikipedia s coverage affected liberal bias. andrew schlafly created conservapedia because found wikipedia increasingly anti-christian , anti-american frequent use of british spelling , coverage of topics creationism , effect of christianity on renaissance. in 2007, article in christian post criticised wikipedia s coverage of intelligent design, saying biased , hypocritical. lawrence solomon of national review stated wikipedia articles on subjects global warming, intelligent design, , roe v. wade slanted in favor of liberal views.

in september 2010 issue of conservative weekly human events, rowan scarborough presented critique of wikipedia s coverage of american politicians prominent in approaching midterm elections evidence of systemic liberal bias. scarborough compared biographical articles of liberal , conservative opponents in senate races in alaska republican primary , delaware , nevada general election, emphasizing quantity of negative coverage of tea party-endorsed candidates. cites criticism lawrence solomon , quotes in full lead section of wikipedia s article on conservative wiki conservapedia evidence of underlying bias.

american , corporate media bias

tim anderson, senior lecturer in political economy @ university of sydney, said wikipedia administrators display u.s.-oriented bias in interaction editors, , in determination of sources appropriate use on site. anderson outraged after several of sources used in edits hugo chávez, including venezuela analysis , z magazine, disallowed unusable . anderson described wikipedia s neutral point of view policy zdnet australia facade , , wikipedia hides behind reliance on corporate media editorials .

a 2015 study found negative facts more removed wikipedia articles on u.s. senators positive facts.

reliability source in other contexts

although wikipedia stated not primary source, has been used evidence in legal cases. in january 2007, new york times reported u.s. courts vary in treatment of wikipedia source of information, on 100 judicial rulings having relied on encyclopedia, including involving taxes, narcotics, , civil issues such personal injury , matrimonial issues.

in april 2012, wall street journal reported in 5 years since 2007 new york times story, federal courts of appeals had cited wikipedia 95 times. story reported u.s. court of appeals fourth circuit vacated convictions in cockfighting case because juror used wikipedia research element of crime, expressing in decision concerns wikipedia s reliability.

in 1 notable case, trademark of formula 1 racing decision, uk intellectual property office considered both reliability of wikipedia, , usefulness reliable source of evidence:

wikipedia has suffered self-editing intrinsic it, giving rise @ times potentially libellous statements. however, inherently, cannot see in wikipedia less true published in book or on websites of news organizations. [formula 1 s lawyer] did not express concerns wikipedia evidence [presented plaintiff]. consider evidence wikipedia can taken @ face value.

the case turned substantively upon evidence cited wikipedia in 2006 usage , interpretation of term formula one.

in united states, united states court of federal claims has ruled wikipedia may not reliable source of information. , ...articles [from wikipedia] not—at least on face—remotely meet reliability requirement...a review of wikipedia website reveals pervasive and, our purposes, disturbing series of disclaimers... . such disclaimers include wikipedia not being able guarantee validity of information on articles , having no formal peer review.

among other reasons these statements wikipedia s reliability stability of articles (which due editing may cause new readers find information differs cited) and, according stephen gillers, professor @ new york university law school, critical fact public acceptance , therefore judge should not use wikipedia when public not prepared accept authority .

wikipedia has become key source current news events such 2007 virginia tech massacre, when new york times cites wikimedia report 750,000 page views of article in 2 days after event:

even roanoke times, published near blacksburg, virginia, university located, noted on thursday wikipedia has emerged clearinghouse detailed information on event .

the washington post commented, in context of 2008 presidential election candidate biographies, despite occasional brief vandalism, s hard find more up-to-date, detailed, thorough article on obama wikipedia s. of friday (14 september 2007), obama s article—more 22 pages long, 15 sections covering personal , professional life—had reference list of 167 sources.

broad opinions

several commentators have drawn middle ground, asserting project contains valuable knowledge , has reliability, if degree not yet assessed certainty.

others taking view include danah boyd, [sic] in 2005 discussed wikipedia academic source, concluding [i]t never encyclopedia, contain extensive knowledge quite valuable different purposes , , bill thompson stated use wikipedia lot. starting point serious research, never accept read there without checking.

information today s march 2006 article concludes on similar theme:

the inconvenient reality people , products messy, whether produced in top-down or bottom-up manner. every source includes errors... many non-fiction books produced via appallingly sloppy process... in author s opinion, flap on wikipedia overblown, contained silver lining: people becoming more aware of perils of accepting information @ face value. have learned not consult 1 source.

dan gillmor, silicon valley commentator , author commented in october 2004 that, don t think saying wikipedia absolute replacement traditional encyclopedia. in topics know about, ve found wikipedia accurate other source ve found.

larry sanger stated on kuro5hin in 2001 given enough eyeballs, errors shallow , paraphrase of linus law of open-source development.

likewise, technology figure joi ito wrote on wikipedia s authority, [a]lthough depends bit on field, question whether more true coming source resume sounds authoritative, or source has been viewed hundreds of thousands of people (with ability comment) , has survived.

in 2008 letter editor of physics today, gregg jaeger, associate professor @ boston university, has characterized wikipedia medium susceptible fostering anarchy , distortions in relation scientific information. letter in response review of book quantum information: overview, had questioned whether there audience such encyclopedic texts, given easy access online sources of information such arxiv e-print server , wikipedia.

people known use or recommend wikipedia reference source include film critic roger ebert, comedian rosie o donnell, university of maryland physicist robert l. park, rutgers university sociology professor ted goertzel , scientific skepticism promoter , investigator james randi. periodicals publish articles featuring citations of wikipedia source include american science magazines skeptic , skeptical inquirer. in january 2013 episode of talk show, stossel, how ideas can flourish without regulation, journalist john stossel interviewed wikipedia co-founder jimmy wales, , discussed success of wikipedia s model versus of britannica, during stossel stated own wikipedia article exhibited 1 error.

jean goodwin wrote on reasons why wikipedia may trusted. according him, while readers may not assess actual expertise of authors of given article, may assess passion of wikipedians, , in far provide reason trust.

tools testing reliability of articles

screenshot of wiki-watch rating of article reliability of wikipedia rated reliable source , additional orange wikitrust marks questionable edits

while experienced editors can view article history , discussion page, normal users not easy check whether information wikipedia reliable. university projects california, switzerland , germany try improve methods of formal analysis , data mining. wiki-watch germany, inspired wikibu switzerland, shows evaluation five-stars every english or german article in wikipedia. part of rating tool wikitrust shows trustworthiness of single text parts of wikipedia articles white (trustworthy) or orange (not trustworthy) markings.