Another reason wikipedia is not a good source

[Apex Paul]

Wikipedia is such a horrible source for "real" information. It gets such great placement in the search engines because it is 99% text based and has been around forever, but it has tons of inaccuracies that is cannot be trusted for good information.

Now, I am speaking from a perspective of someone with a background in science, where the expectation of accuracy is a bit different than in a lot of areas, but the accuracy isn't what made me laugh this morning.

I was reading a news story and clicked on a link that led to a wikipedia page. Within that wiki page was a link to another wiki page. When i got there the article was deleted.

Deleted. However, there was an entire discussion on why the article should or should not be deleted. The primary reason cited for deletion was that the subject didn't meet the level of "notability" because it wasn't found elsewhere on the web and for the reason that it was "is not 'widely regarded' in any way, and is only a local event/group"

Now, I live in Indiana. The event occurred in Florida and I saw it on multiple occasions on national television. That seems like it would be more than local, no? I also saw the story published in more than one magazine, but wikipedia referenced that it was cause to delete the story because those stories no longer appeared on the publications internet site. So if it isn't on the web, it didn't happen?

/rant

[mastertypodemon]

It sounds to me that there was a doubt to the authenticity of the event then. With only a source or two in local news stations referencing said event and then those sources being deleted, there was nothing to base wikipedia's article on. Thus, without source material, nothing could be verified.

[FenwickHockey65]

Wikipedia is fun to read but is an awful source. There's a reason nobody accepts it in academia.

Another example: back when the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky were still around, we had gotten word on GMI that the Kappa platform was on its way out, which wasn't surprising considering how GM lost money on every single Kappa sold. I was poking around Wikipedia and stumbled across the article for the Kappa platform and decided I'd edit it to include that info, perfectly formatted with its own section and everything. A few hours later, I looked at the article and found that one of the so-called experts who was moderating the site had deleted my revision, saying that there was no evidence that the Kappas were going away and had also warned me that "vandalism" would not be tolerated and I would be banned if I continued to do so.

A few months later and the Kappa platform was gone. Shame that I don't remember the name of that idiot, I'd love to make him eat his words.

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Wikipedia is fun to read but is an awful source. There's a reason nobody accepts it in academia.

Another example: back when the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky were still around, we had gotten word on GMI that the Kappa platform was on its way out, which wasn't surprising considering how GM lost money on every single Kappa sold. I was poking around Wikipedia and stumbled across the article for the Kappa platform and decided I'd edit it to include that info, perfectly formatted with its own section and everything. A few hours later, I looked at the article and found that one of the so-called experts who was moderating the site had deleted my revision, saying that there was no evidence that the Kappas were going away and had also warned me that "vandalism" would not be tolerated and I would be banned if I continued to do so.

A few months later and the Kappa platform was gone. Shame that I don't remember the name of that idiot, I'd love to make him eat his words.

I'm not sure what GMI is, but did you reference that as your source for the info?

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

I'm not sure what GMI is, but did you reference that as your source for the info?

GMInsideNews.com.

I believe I did. It was over a year ago so I don't quite remember.

[Camaro_Corvette]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Wikipedia is fun to read but is an awful source. There's a reason nobody accepts it in academia.

Another example: back when the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky were still around, we had gotten word on GMI that the Kappa platform was on its way out, which wasn't surprising considering how GM lost money on every single Kappa sold. I was poking around Wikipedia and stumbled across the article for the Kappa platform and decided I'd edit it to include that info, perfectly formatted with its own section and everything. A few hours later, I looked at the article and found that one of the so-called experts who was moderating the site had deleted my revision, saying that there was no evidence that the Kappas were going away and had also warned me that "vandalism" would not be tolerated and I would be banned if I continued to do so.

A few months later and the Kappa platform was gone. Shame that I don't remember the name of that idiot, I'd love to make him eat his words.

I would have made him pay!

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

GMInsideNews.com.

I believe I did. It was over a year ago so I don't quite remember.

Wikpedia fail