Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages[W:45]

[APACHERAT]

Wikipedia admits spin doctors and users with false online identities have been changing pages

I wonder if I ruffled some wkifeathers by not accepting Wkipedia being a reliable source and posting the :attn1: and Wikipedia disclaimer ?




>" Wikipedia, the largest reference work on the Internet, has made an unprecedented admission that its site is being manipulated by paid spin doctors and "sock puppets" using false online identities to change entries.

A long statement from the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable organisation that oversees the sixth largest site on the web, revealed that some 250 sock puppets have been "blocked or banned" after being found to have carried out "non-neutral editing" of Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia, which has grown to more than 30m articles (with more than 4m in the English language edition) since it was founded in 2001, uses a team of some 250,000 volunteer editors to protect the authenticity of its content.

But in the statement, Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, acknowledged that it had been the victim of concerted activity in falsifying pages for commercial and other motives..."<
Continue -> Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages - News - Gadgets & Tech - The Independent

 

[Paschendale]

The speed with which Wikipedia catches malicious edits and fixes them demonstrates how reliable it is.

 

[Kobie]

I always like checking wikipedia when an athlete or umpire/referee makes a bad call or bad play. The speed at which people will mess with their entries with some funny stuff is hilarious. But yeah, Pasch is right, it usually gets caught quick.

With how many entries are on wikipedia, the fact that they've only tagged 250 is rather impressive.

 

[Wiseone]

While nothing is perfect I think Wikipedia deserves a top spot in history for some of the greatest leaps forward in the spread of human knowledge. Its open and easily editable format may make it vunerable at times to biased editting, but its generally quickly caught and that same format lets other people quickly correct errors.

Think for a moment if you wanted to read an article about literally anything, the first place to go is wikipedia and if you don't like that material or want to see the sources for it every wikipedia articles lists them at the bottom.

 

[DDD]

This is a step in the right direction but not a final one. There are tons of things need fixing.

 

[Ben K.]

Wikipedia has references, which makes it better than 99% of what we can link to on the internet. Check them if you doubt an articles validity.

 

[joG]

Wikipedia admits spin doctors and users with false online identities have been changing pages

I wonder if I ruffled some wkifeathers by not accepting Wkipedia being a reliable source and posting the :attn1: and Wikipedia disclaimer ?

>" Wikipedia, the largest reference work on the Internet, has made an unprecedented admission that its site is being manipulated by paid spin doctors and "sock puppets" using false online identities to change entries.

A long statement from the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable organisation that oversees the sixth largest site on the web, revealed that some 250 sock puppets have been "blocked or banned" after being found to have carried out "non-neutral editing" of Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia, which has grown to more than 30m articles (with more than 4m in the English language edition) since it was founded in 2001, uses a team of some 250,000 volunteer editors to protect the authenticity of its content.

But in the statement, Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, acknowledged that it had been the victim of concerted activity in falsifying pages for commercial and other motives..."<
Continue -> Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages - News - Gadgets & Tech - The Independent

Anyone that uses Wikipedia very much knows there are people altering the entries. This is quite obvious, where prominent persons are mentioned or the topic is controversial. Often there is the glib feel of hidden persuaders sticking to the entry.

Usually the information has proven good, however. But I would not rely on Wiki as a sole source under any circumstances.

 

[Surtr]

I'm for it as a basic source of information. Some of the articles are excellent, and chock full of knowledge from cited sources (all you have to do is click one of the little blue numbers to check out the source, if you think the source is bunk, report it). The only real problems you're going to have are on controversial issues, and they'll straight up tell you that there may be issues with that article so you know to take it with a grain of salt. The core community who gives a damn about academic integrity is quick to tag some bull**** and call out bias and personal assertions. It's a very self-regulating community, and a lot of people on there take it very seriously. It's reliable enough to use as a general outline.

 

[Redress]

Wikipedia admits spin doctors and users with false online identities have been changing pages

I wonder if I ruffled some wkifeathers by not accepting Wkipedia being a reliable source and posting the :attn1: and Wikipedia disclaimer ?

It is pretty safe to say Wikipedia does not give a **** what you say about them as they have no clue who you are, nor any reason to care.

People who bitch about wiki as a source are people who do not know how to use wiki. If you think of it as a gathering of sources in a convenient location, then you will use it right.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I'm the first one to admit that Wikipedia is not 100.00% reliable and as such take it as a sole source with a grain of salt. But I'm also the first one to use it as I know that generally it is a dang good site for general information and a good starting spot to get more information on a particular subject. I've both used it on this site AND have spoken against it. And no, that doesn't make me a hypocrit. As with anything in this world there is always a good and bad to anything and everything.

 

[Un biased]

I still would not use Wikipedia if you cant find your information on another site than chances are it is not correct . Unless your site has a edu ending most likely you need another site with verification of your statement to be believed and thought of as truthful . Safety in numbers .

 

[APACHERAT]

It is pretty safe to say Wikipedia does not give a **** what you say about them as they have no clue who you are, nor any reason to care.

People who bitch about wiki as a source are people who do not know how to use wiki. If you think of it as a gathering of sources in a convenient location, then you will use it right.

Do you think I should close my 11 year old Wikipedia account ?

 

[PirateMk1]

Wikipedia admits spin doctors and users with false online identities have been changing pages

I wonder if I ruffled some wkifeathers by not accepting Wkipedia being a reliable source and posting the :attn1: and Wikipedia disclaimer ?




>" Wikipedia, the largest reference work on the Internet, has made an unprecedented admission that its site is being manipulated by paid spin doctors and "sock puppets" using false online identities to change entries.

A long statement from the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable organisation that oversees the sixth largest site on the web, revealed that some 250 sock puppets have been "blocked or banned" after being found to have carried out "non-neutral editing" of Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia, which has grown to more than 30m articles (with more than 4m in the English language edition) since it was founded in 2001, uses a team of some 250,000 volunteer editors to protect the authenticity of its content.

But in the statement, Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, acknowledged that it had been the victim of concerted activity in falsifying pages for commercial and other motives..."<
Continue -> Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages - News - Gadgets & Tech - The Independent

I donate to them I think so highly of them. I know they are not perfect, but they are 99.00% reliable and that is damn hard to achieve and is better than Encyclopedia Britannica by far. I use them as a starting point for further exploration. I like them a lot.

 

[APACHERAT]

The speed with which Wikipedia catches malicious edits and fixes them demonstrates how reliable it is.

But back in early 2008 when you looked up Barack Obama, for at least two days it said Obama was born in Kenya before someone reedited it. That page was getting hit heavily back in 2008. The "N" word started appearing every day and would be removed with in 24 hours. Eventually Wiki had to put a lock on the Obama page. If you see a little locked padlock at the top, only a selected few can edit the page.

Four or five years ago some lady edited the Hells Angels MC page claiming that the H.A.'s were founded in the late 1930's. Her source she said was her father. It stayed up for almost a month. Most people who lived in California during the 40's-60's are well aware the H.A.'s were founded by WW ll veterans right after the Second World War.

It was discovered that many of the biographies of living individuals were writing their own biographies on the Wiki. That's suppose to be a no no on the Wiki. Most of the guilty seem to be politicians.

The best way to use Wiki, always go to the "talk page" to see what the contributors to an article are saying among each other.

Wikipedia should only be used as a starting point for further research.

Most of the Wikipedia contributors for political topics who have an account are liberal and you can expect some bias leanings.

Revisionist history is heavily used on Wikipedia. Just last year Wiki sided with the revisionist and if you type in "Philippine Insurrection" it will take you directly to "Philippine-American War." The "Philipine-American War" was never used or was found on the Wiki before 2011. It's PC revisionism.

But I think in twenty or so years from now, Wikipedia will be a reliable source. Right now, there's still to much incorrect information on the Wiki.

 

[Gipper]

Maybe it's because I'm an academic by nature, but this neither shocks me nor concerns me. Using wiki as a source is opening yourself to ridicule by anyone with meritorious knowledge of a subject.

 

[APACHERAT]

I donate to them I think so highly of them. I know they are not perfect, but they are 99.00% reliable and that is damn hard to achieve and is better than Encyclopedia Britannica by far. I use them as a starting point for further exploration. I like them a lot.

99% reliability is pretty high. But then again that's for all topics. I sure wouldn't give them that high of a reliability on accuracy for historical events. And for political topics, heavily liberal bias.

Big improvement on military topics, Wiki has brought in experts to keep things under control.

But I'll agree that it's probably the best place to go on the internet for a starting point for further research. Right now, a good research library is the best source.

 

[polgara]

But back in early 2008 when you looked up Barack Obama, for at least two days it said Obama was born in Kenya before someone reedited it. That page was getting hit heavily back in 2008. The "N" word started appearing every day and would be removed with in 24 hours. Eventually Wiki had to put a lock on the Obama page. If you see a little locked padlock at the top, only a selected few can edit the page.

Four or five years ago some lady edited the Hells Angels MC page claiming that the H.A.'s were founded in the late 1930's. Her source she said was her father. It stayed up for almost a month. Most people who lived in California during the 40's-60's are well aware the H.A.'s were founded by WW ll veterans right after the Second World War.

It was discovered that many of the biographies of living individuals were writing their own biographies on the Wiki. That's suppose to be a no no on the Wiki. Most of the guilty seem to be politicians.

The best way to use Wiki, always go to the "talk page" to see what the contributors to an article are saying among each other.

Wikipedia should only be used as a starting point for further research.

Most of the Wikipedia contributors for political topics who have an account are liberal and you can expect some bias leanings.

Revisionist history is heavily used on Wikipedia. Just last year Wiki sided with the revisionist and if you type in "Philippine Insurrection" it will take you directly to "Philippine-American War." The "Philipine-American War" was never used or was found on the Wiki before 2011. It's PC revisionism.

But I think in twenty or so years from now, Wikipedia will be a reliable source. Right now, there's still to much incorrect information on the Wiki.

Greetings, APACHERAT. :2wave:

Even his wife Michelle said he was born in Kenya, and I believe many people have that speech saved! In fairness, BHO has never said he wasn't born in Kenya, to my knowledge, so until he does, or proof that his grandmother was wrong when she stated she witnessed his birth there, it's a topic for debate...as it certainly has been for years!

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Even his wife Michelle said he was born in Kenya, and I believe many people have that speech saved!

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[Paschendale]

But back in early 2008 when you looked up Barack Obama, for at least two days it said Obama was born in Kenya before someone reedited it. That page was getting hit heavily back in 2008. The "N" word started appearing every day and would be removed with in 24 hours. Eventually Wiki had to put a lock on the Obama page. If you see a little locked padlock at the top, only a selected few can edit the page.

Four or five years ago some lady edited the Hells Angels MC page claiming that the H.A.'s were founded in the late 1930's. Her source she said was her father. It stayed up for almost a month. Most people who lived in California during the 40's-60's are well aware the H.A.'s were founded by WW ll veterans right after the Second World War.

It was discovered that many of the biographies of living individuals were writing their own biographies on the Wiki. That's suppose to be a no no on the Wiki. Most of the guilty seem to be politicians.

The best way to use Wiki, always go to the "talk page" to see what the contributors to an article are saying among each other.

Wikipedia should only be used as a starting point for further research.

Most of the Wikipedia contributors for political topics who have an account are liberal and you can expect some bias leanings.

Revisionist history is heavily used on Wikipedia. Just last year Wiki sided with the revisionist and if you type in "Philippine Insurrection" it will take you directly to "Philippine-American War." The "Philipine-American War" was never used or was found on the Wiki before 2011. It's PC revisionism.

But I think in twenty or so years from now, Wikipedia will be a reliable source. Right now, there's still to much incorrect information on the Wiki.

So, conservatives post fake information about the president's birthplace and call him racial slurs, while liberals use a different name for a conflict that most people have never heard of anyway. Yeah man, those liberals are dangerous. They're revising the names of military conflicts to more accurately reflect who was involved because of political correctness. Because insurrection has no connotations or judgments and merely listing the parties does. Wait, no. It's the other way around.

Either way, all of these mistakes were found and corrected. Wikipedia fixes its mistakes. Very few other information sources do that. Printed sources obviously can't. Blogs don't. News outlets often don't.

And, as always, "liberal bias", because technology literate, well educated people who know a lot about politics or history tend to be liberal. Sucks for you, huh?

Even his wife Michelle said he was born in Kenya, and I believe many people have that speech saved! In fairness, BHO has never said he wasn't born in Kenya, to my knowledge, so until he does, or proof that his grandmother was wrong when she stated she witnessed his birth there, it's a topic for debate...as it certainly has been for years!

Seriously? Birther crap? He also never said he wasn't born on the moon. Should we be talking about that?

 

[Grand Mal]

Where do you get this stuff?

I smell another birth cetificate about to round the corner.

 

[Grand Mal]

Four or five years ago some lady edited the Hells Angels MC page claiming that the H.A.'s were founded in the late 1930's. Her source she said was her father. It stayed up for almost a month. Most people who lived in California during the 40's-60's are well aware the H.A.'s were founded by WW ll veterans right after the Second World War.

Didn't the name and emblem come from an Air Corps fighter squadron or bomber wing or something?

 

[Summerwind]

Wikipedia admits spin doctors and users with false online identities have been changing pages

I wonder if I ruffled some wkifeathers by not accepting Wkipedia being a reliable source and posting the :attn1: and Wikipedia disclaimer ?




>" Wikipedia, the largest reference work on the Internet, has made an unprecedented admission that its site is being manipulated by paid spin doctors and "sock puppets" using false online identities to change entries.

A long statement from the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable organisation that oversees the sixth largest site on the web, revealed that some 250 sock puppets have been "blocked or banned" after being found to have carried out "non-neutral editing" of Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia, which has grown to more than 30m articles (with more than 4m in the English language edition) since it was founded in 2001, uses a team of some 250,000 volunteer editors to protect the authenticity of its content.

But in the statement, Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, acknowledged that it had been the victim of concerted activity in falsifying pages for commercial and other motives..."<
Continue -> Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages - News - Gadgets & Tech - The Independent

Let's see, 250 of 250,000, is .1% or .001. That means that 99.9% of their editors are not a problem of any sort. I can't think of too many organizations can claim that level of neutrality.

 

[Summerwind]

Maybe it's because I'm an academic by nature, but this neither shocks me nor concerns me. Using wiki as a source is opening yourself to ridicule by anyone with meritorious knowledge of a subject.

I agree, sort of, but I do think it is a good starting place for general info, and as sources for potential details, opnions, etc.

 

[joko104]

I contribute to Wikipedia just like I do this forum. I pay my way. I contribute to what I use.

You?

 

[Redress]

Maybe it's because I'm an academic by nature, but this neither shocks me nor concerns me. Using wiki as a source is opening yourself to ridicule by anyone with meritorious knowledge of a subject.

If you are researching something outside of an academic situation and your first stop is not wiki, you screwed up. It should not be the last stop, but it is the best starting place for just about every single topic.