How accurate is the internet?

[DAKSTER]

HOW RELIABLE IS THE INTERNET AS AN INFORMATION SOURCE?


OK, whats this all about?

Today I was reading a interesting Wikipedia entry on the 'Dry Valleys' while planning a thesis. It is an area of McMurdo Sound in Antarctica which is the driest place on Earth. There is no snow or ice, no humidity, and it hasn't rained for 2 million years. Winds of over 300kmh are common. A few small lakes exist, many of which are the saltiest on earth, being even saltier than the Dead Sea.

It also mentioned and provided a link to Blood Falls - a tiny exit point and a tiny trickle of water from a lake 400m under the Taylor glacier. It has taken millions of years to stain a five story high ramp of ice into a small saltwater lake ('falls' is a very generous description ).

The article stated that the falls got their incredible blood red colour as a result of algae living in the water below.

Now it happens that I know this to be untrue. It was the accepted theory at one point, but it has since been found that the colour is caused by very high levels of minerals in the water, specifically Iron Oxide. The bacteria are certainly there though, and amazing little critters they are. They just don't cause the red colour. I recommend you read all about it, I find it fascinating.

So anyway, armed with the certainty of my infallibility, I have collected a couple links to modern opinion on the subject and amended the Wikipedia entry on McMurdo Dry Valleys!!

It was dead easy, a few clicks, an email address, username etc.. and I have edited Wikipedia.


Next time you use Wikipedia to provide 'facts'... consider this. You could be quoting my opinion as fact... fortunately it usually is


a./ A supposed scientific article had mistakes in it.
b./ I was, with no proof of my own knowledge, able to amend it with my own version of fact.
c./ They could be wrong, I could be wrong, we both could be wrong. (I'm right )


That's in the case of a publicly accessible and editable resource like Wikipedia of course, but there are many other reasons why 'facts' are often not.

It may be the political leanings of a particular website for instance, which will present only those facts and opinions which support their particular agenda, creating a bias.. in much the same way as newspapers and other media work now.

It may be people espousing their own misremembered 'facts' in a perfectly genuine belief that they are on the high ground, with 'real' facts which they have never in fact checked upon. Most people are guilty of doing this on a regular basis without even realising it.

For whatever reason, almost every website in the world will contain errors, some insignificant and some major.The internet is a useful tool, and the correct information is out there.

The trick is to use many sources for your information. Generally, the real answer will float to the surface. Unless of course you want to prove your point and ignore the stuff that doesn't suit your argument, as most of us do

Anyone got any examples of Wikipedia mistakes they have discovered? Anyone edited Wikipedia before and what did you do?

 

[Wongy295]

>>accurate
>>WikiPedia

Pick one.

That's the joys of an open source encyclopaedia. I take everything with a grain of salt and only use WikiPedia for PERSONAL reference, never while debating with someone.

I always scroll to the bottom of the Wiki page, to view the sources if more information is required for my understanding.

 

[Tatiana]

I have always known Wikipedia can be updated by anyone and "facts" changed.

Obviously not everyone knows this and believes it to be a factual reference source.

 

[frogsta]

Only use it as a brief read on something but for factual evidence I will look at the sources
Also Wikipedia isn't a valid source in essays or assignments (at my old school anyway)

 

[fatboyvk]

i thought everyone knew that wikipedia is often wrong and anyone can change it.

 

[DAKSTER]

Of course, its only an example. I was surprised, this being the first time I have edited it, how little information they wanted on me. Basically, none at all. Create a username, give an email address. I could have posted semi anonymously too.. simply leaving my IP address. You would think they would have a field in which you could enter a quick precis of your bona fides..

Its not just Wikipedia that is not reliable, its almost any website. Every site has its own agenda, whether it be a news organisation with political leanings, or Rihanna's blog.

Even genuine facts can be misleading when selectively chosen.

This isn't some shock reaction from me at the inaccuracy of the internet Its just an observation. I'm more curious as to how many people have actually edited Wikipedia, not how many people knew it could be done. It would be interesting to see what stirred people enough to bother, and what they edited.

In my case, umm probably just bored today..

 

[davey g-force]

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it's a big issue.

If the information you posted on Wiki was incorrect, then someone else would correct it, and so on, and so on. Eventually, the correct answer will be found. You yourself summed it up:

The trick is to use many sources for your information. Generally, the real answer will float to the surface.

That's what Wiki does by its very nature. It just may take a while

 

[monkeys437]

I've edited wikipedia with rubbish just for fun to see what happens and my entries have been removed within a few days, sometimes within hours.

This is why you can't reference wikipedia in any uni work, it's not reliable as factual evidence as frogsta says.
I just use it to improve my broad understanding of a subject

 

[Kiddo]

There was a time when wikipedia stated that Confucious was a ninja....until they found out i edited the article..

 

[MikeCuzzy]

A similar issue came up in my uni course last semester.

In 2005, the scientific journal Nature published a study comparing Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica for accuracy. The study involved collecting articles from both parties on a variety of topics and getting experts in said fields to check for accuracies.

Both parties had four serious errors each, indicating misunderstandings of key areas in a topic. When considering small factual errors, Wikipedia had 162 and Britannica 123. At a glance, Britannica is still the clear leader. However, Wikipedia now covers an almost impossibly large number of topics relative to Britannica.

The key to Wikipedia is editors *usually* pick up the silly errors quickly. It has incredible self-regulation.

Basically there was one overwhelming conclusion: neither Wikipedia nor Britannica should be used as an exclusive source. It's always good practice to read from multiple sources, it's the same reason early uni course state clearly they want at least 3 sources for example.