Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia/Archive 1

Wikipedia namespace
Do you think this article should be moved to Reliability? It seems more like the kind of thing that should be in there.' FL a  RN ' (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. I considered it but in fact, it is an article material. Its not a collection of Wikipedia quotes or anything arbitrary, or a collection of media quotes. In the same way that an article on some software might have a "Criticisms of X" subtopic, or some diagnostic test might have a "Reliability of diagnostic test X" subtopic, the article on Wikipedia has a legitimate subtopic covering Wikipedia's own reliability. That article should be sourced, verifiable, neutral, and so on, and cover both majority and significant-minority views and their evidence, as well as touch on its own related matters, and that's what this article does. Articles such as Wikipedia quotes, clippings, projects, strategies, management, and the like, belong in the Wikipedia: namespace. FT2 (Talk 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"A rough consensus seems to emerge from librarian and academic reviewers that although there is skepticism, Wikipedia is considered even by skeptics to be a valuable resource, that it is on the whole accurate and objective"

Talk about POV. For what it's worth I find that 99% of articles don't cite sources. This is blatant politics and should be removed. Mglovesfun 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When I researched and wrote the article, I looked up every source I could find, where an authenticated seemingly-reputable librarian appreared to have formally stated a view of some significance on the subject. This included reviewing guidance issued by college librarians on Wikipedia's use and their perceptions. These are documented in the section under librarian views, and that statement is a concise summary of the views which emerged. The subject of this article is Reliability of Wikipedia, and for that purpose it cites its sources fully, and with care. If theres evidence otherwise it would be useful to read it. And also, views (like everything) can change over time. FT2 (Talk 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or
Is it just me or does this article seem unreliable?Sabrebattletank 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually pretty carefully researched. If there are material inaccuracies or misrepresentations then bring them to the talk page or correct them. "Seems unreliable" doesn't really seem to say much other than to indicate that the reader has not gone to the trouble of checking for him/herself. FT2 (Talk 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Bad joke.Sabrebattletank 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kinda funny, but no the article is fine. --SpartaGeek23 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * EPIC --173.66.29.110 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --207.87.228.130 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He has a point Winner 42 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Certain subject matter and reliability
I suspect that Wikipedia's reliability depends on the topic you are reading about. For instance if the nature study is to be believed Wikipedia is a reasonably accurate and reliable source for scientific articles. However the philosophical articles are widely agreed by the editors belonging to the Wikiproject philosophy to be a nightmare of factual inaccuracy and confusion created by amateurs with little or no formal study of philosophy. Personally I believe that the more abstract a topic is, the more likely inaccuracy will be present. Additionally complex topics with many conceptual intricacies that are nevertheless deeply interesting to many members of the public ( such as Philosophy). Using philosophy as an example again it's notable that drier philosophical topics which would attract few non specialists who don't work in related fields, like the philosophy of logic, seem to be more accurate and trample over less technical distinctions than topics such as arguments for and against the existence of God.

Could we discuss differences in reliability between topics in the article?

Sure, sounds good. Go for it. Sabrebattletank 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, use reliable sources to do it. Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so nothing published here counts.  I know there was also a review of historical topics that someone published.  GRBerry 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to see a study on the quality of wikipedia articles excluding those less than one year old, or something like that. I'd imagine the results would be high on the side of reliability, but I'd really like to know. MulletManDan 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a chart somewhere that organizes all the featured articles into categories based on subject matter? The general sentiment I've heard is that Wikipedia excels at reliability in the scientific and math fields, and is weaker with more liberal subjects. 71.176.33.11 (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Featured articles lists featured articles by broad topic. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

College professor's remarks
I go to Middle Tennessee State University, and one of the professors, a man who taught the subject of Global History, stated that Wikipedia should not be used as a dependable source; his reasons why were the choppyness of the articles; the fact that anyone without credentials, or even an education, can edit the pages; the way a lot of it is written, i.e. in 5th Grade English or worse.

In a way, that professor is right in that there needs to be more professionalism (not necessarily credentials) in how an article is written and presented. But I don't believe that Wikipedia should be a sub-standard reference work, and I don't believe Wikipedia should be ignored as far as research and authoritativeness goes. I think everyone who writes in should do their utmost to ensure a standard of excellence here. And if some sitting professors still think otherwise...perhaps Wikipedia should consider and encourage them to write their own articles on any given subject, which will make Wikipedia better still. Carajou 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I teach English Composition at a college in upstate New York. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I tell my students I will take one whole letter grade off their papers for every Wikipedia citation that appears. Research is only good as the quality and accountability of the sources and the authors, both of which are lacking with Wikipedia. -- Jango Davis 12:30 (UTC), 19 February 2007.


 * Obviously Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source... it's a secondary source that only cites other material. At best it can be used to find references. Reliability has nothing to do with it; encyclopedia articles in general are not suitable as references, and this is certainly the case here. Richard001 08:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have used Wikipedia as the only source for many of my grade school projects, and my teachers have authorized Wikipedia as an "Internet Source". Depending on the teacher and your source requirments, I think Wikipedia should be considerd as "reliable". At the bottom, the references for the article are listed. Cross-referencing can prove the sources reliable, as well as the fact most of the time someone repairs the articles becasue of vandalism or false or biased opinions. --SpartaGeek23 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Grade school may well accept Wikipedia but no reputable University or College would. I am sure the admins will bash away, but Wikipedia is so poorly sourced it's embarrassing (and please, don't give me the company like about "removal". If I removed everything that didn't have a source, half the encyclopedia would disappear overnight) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.228.44 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles only get sourced when people volunteer their time to source them. I've noticed sourcing has improved greatly in the three years that I've been contributing.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say about admins above, but Wikipedia does not claim to be appropriate for citing in tertiary study; see Citing Wikipedia or the general disclaimer, for example. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories
I don't think this new addition actually informs readers in any way upon the factual reliability of Wikipedia. It at most says "an uncited and un-numbered minority think there could be bias due to conspiracy theories".

But this article is about assessing bias, and doesn't particularly dwell on speculated causes (real or otherwise). The testers of bias are academics, librarians and other commentators on the online information world, and their views are given. I'm thinking that a section "Some people think there is a conspiracy theory" doesn't add any notable substantial content.

I am minded to think it can be removed as not adding to the article. If needed try a separate article, "Conspiracy theories about Wikipedia", if there are any, and they are notable.

Thoughts? FT2 (Talk 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection; I thought I was being fairly charitable in just slapping the unreferenced tag onto it. GRBerry 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it. There's no problem with having a paragraph on that subject, if reliable sources can be found and cited. However, the paragraph would probably be better suited to Criticism of Wikipedia – Qxz 03:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous. If Wikipedia is unreliable then how can we trust this article to assess Wikipedia's reliability? Holy crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.228.103 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is not ridiculous regardless of whether Wikipedia is reliable. If you actually read the article, it repeatedly quotes people who note that no source should be "trusted" -- that observation is certainly reliable. There are numerous means to determine whether this article accurately assesses Wikipedia's reliability -- there is no need to "trust" that it does. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-elitism
Here are examples of anti-elitism attitudes by Wikipedia editors:

“Just because you can recite the defense by heart doesn't mean you know more then me.” TripleH1976 User talk:196.15.168.40 (that discussion seems to have been removed recently)

“He's able to recite the date of court testimony and who made them. He knows the numbers of the state evidence.” Fighting for Justice Talk:David_Westerfield/Archive2 (in the Notes section)

None of that was intended as praise, and it reveals an antagonism towards people who are knowledgeable about the subject. That can discourage experts and is not conducive to reliable articles.196.2.56.5 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing reference
The first instance of the reference for the March 2006 Information Today seems to have been deleted at some point, resulting in a blank entry in the reference list. In the current revision of the article as I write this, it is reference #12 in the list. (It's also ref name="informationtoday".) Is there any way to find this other than going through the history edit-by-edit? Iknowyourider (t c) 07:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fraid not. The other way of sorting this out is to find the original article. Google news might help. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Coverage statments are tchnically correct but wrong
In the coverage section it states that the article for Hurricane frances is longer than the article for Chinese Art and that the article for Corronation street is longer than that of tony blair.

While technically true, the article of chinese art has a "History" section which is part of a main artical called History of Chinese art which is longer than both the stub article on chinese art and the one on hurricane frances. A simmilar situation with the Tony Blair article is that many of the sections lead to main articles that are much longer.

In Addition it states that the Hurricane Fraces article is five times the length of Chinese art, althoug it may have been true at the time of writing it is no longer accurate. The huricane artical is no longer than twice that of Chinese Art.

I consider these statements to be both wrong (in some respects) and to be based on technicalities which throw the valididty of the point they are attempting to make into question. I suggest that they are removed from the article.


 * It's a quote, and the non-up-to-dateness of it is pointed out. Richard001 10:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name
Reliability seems to imply accuracy, at least mainly. Coverage and comprehensiveness is another matter. Perhaps this should be renamed 'Quality of Wikipedia'? Richard001 10:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Upon slightly more reflection, I think it might even be a good idea to merge this with criticism of Wikipedia. There is a lot of overlap here. If we change the subject to quality, the overlap increases. It's still not complete, of course. Criticism is only looking at the negative aspects (which I think should be avoided when you can have an article that looks at both the good and bad (e.g. I've suggested costs and benefits of recycling is better than criticism of recycling). If we had an article that discussed the good and bad qualities of Wikipedia&mdash;its merit as an encyclopedia&mdash;that would basically encompass both articles, allowing them to be merged. What to call it? Perhaps strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia, or something like that?


 * But even if you disagree with my mergism, I still think broadening this to 'quality of' rather than 'reliability of' is a good move. Richard001 (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, thinking about the term 'quality', it doesn't really cover comprehensiveness much more than reliability, does it? Perhaps something like quality and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. Reliability is a subset of quality (quality includes, e.g. quality of prose, as well as factual accuracy), but quality itself doesn't include comprehensiveness. Wikipedia could have 100 of the best encyclopedia articles ever written, but it wouldn't be very comprehensive. What I feel this article is trying to discuss is the overall 'goodness' of Wikipedia - its quality and its quantity. Is there a more natural word for this, though?


 * Edit: Perhaps evaluation of Wikipedia is what I'm looking for. Richard001 (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Review
I'm having a go at cleanup on this article, so far all cirtes are now in CITE WEB format and correctly noted, and a couple of flow improvements in the intro.

FT2 (Talk 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of 'Coverage' closely mimics the last few lines of 'Reliability in other contexts' just above. 82.153.143.213 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikis truthfulness
Hi, I was on Wikipedia to find out who appointed Louis Freeh to "Director of the FBI" to find that this information is omitted, while the information of who appointed him to "U.S. District Court Judge" is given.

Figure out yourself why Wikipedia states the relative unimportant information of who appointed Frey to U.S. District Court Judge (there seem to be over 250 district court judgeships) while omitting the information of who appointed him to the much more important position of Director of the FBI. (hint : it was Bill Clinton)

It seems that Wikipedia is infested with "left-wing" ideologues (who else would suppress such information) and either tolerates them or has not found a way to get rid of them, in either case they make a joke of Wikipedia´s aspiration to be an Encyclopedia.

Some Encyclopedia, omitting who appointed Frey to director of the FBI!!

Can I trust Wikipedia with the value of the constant pi, or has that also received the caring attention of some "politically correct" editor? Werner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.92.136 (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I doubt that the person who wrote the comment above will ever see this response, I just have a comment for those who may stumble across this (as I did.) The basic comment is, Wikipedia has many articles that aren't perfect.  It is very easy to fix them, or if you don't know how or don't have the information, you can ask for someone else to fix them.  (In this case, the answer to "who appointed Freeh as FBI director" could have been ascertained by anyone who knows who was President of the U.S. in September 1993, but in an ideal world, readers of Wikipedia should not have to do that sort of math for themselves.)  The one thing a reader should not do is assume that information is missing from an article for some nefarious reason.  In some cases, articles are the subjects of disputes and "edit wars" and the information may have been deleted intentionally, but in this case, it looks like it was just deleted sometime during the editing process.  (The first version of the article did say who appointed Freeh.)  In any event, I have now inserted the information so that the next high school student who comes across the article while doing a research paper (if you'll excuse the assumption) will find the information and not leap to the conclusion that there was a left-wing (or right-wing or middle-wing) conspiracy to keep the data out of the article.  (Why a "left-wing ideologue" would want to keep this particular fact off Wikipedia, I am not certain, but there are a lot of things in the world that I don't understand.)  I also found that the article had a number of other little issues that needed to be fixed, and I fixed the ones that were easily fixable.  (See Louis Freeh.)  If you want to talk about something that makes Wikipedia look bad, how about the fact that the first sentence of the article did not have a period at the end of it?  Anyway, that's how Wikipedia works.  6SJ7 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Given how ready Werner is to make broad inferences from narrow facts, it might be he who is the ideologue. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 6SJ7 says: "It is very easy to fix them, or if you don't know how or don't have the information, you can ask for someone else to fix them."
 * No, quite the contrary! Vandalizing them or making them s*ck worse is however very easy ... once.
 * Yes, that's easy! But getting someone fix them is almost impossible.
 * 6SJ7 have obviously not read the worse articles on religion. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pathetically inculcated. 72.187.99.79 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Essay
I have written an essay about assessing the reliability of different articles. I was hoping to get other editors to review, add to it and edit it. Currently, it is in my userspace at User:Billscottbob/Assessing reliability. Thanks for any input you may have. If you have anything you wish to discuss about it please do not discuss it here. Please discuss it on the talk page of the essay. Billscottbob (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More info on the studies
If someone knows the answer to this question and they can add it to the article, that would be great. As I read this page, I wonder, "When Encarta, Wikipedia and Brittanica were studied, did the test subjects know WHICH encyclopedia they were reading from?" Because that can be an important question in determining bias. For example, if I believe that Encarta is a reliable reference and Wikipedia is not a reliable reference, then, as I read the Wikipedia article, I am more likely to find errors. Because I expect Wikipedia to have errors, I am more likely to find them. However, if I don't know which article comes from Encarta and which article comes from Wikipedia, then my research is not biased. Maurajbo (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Humor
I'm sorry if this doesn't go here, but the irony of this article is incredible! Not that I disagree with anything mentioned in this article, but it's just that -- the irony! Here we are, discussing the reliability of Wikipedia ... in a Wikipedia entry. This article made my day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.199.10 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's a little like the liar paradox. If we say we're unreliable, you shouldn't believe us. And if we say we are, how do you know we're not just saying that? Well, I guess you have see to base your judgment on the references don't you? Richard001 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The real irony here is that this article has labels all over it ("unreliable, inappropriate tone, requires cleanup"). :) -- nlitement [talk]  10:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There's really no irony, and certainly no liar's paradox, since the article does not claim that Wikipedia is unreliable. Rather, it repeatedly cites others who say that Wikipedia articles are just a starting point, that one should think critically when evaluating the accuracy of any article, etc. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Many of the negative claims of this article are very easy to fix, f.ex. I know at least 1 librarian here, but the trouble is the policies WP:CIRCULAR, the sources must be 3:rd part neutral, and WP:COI where I'm clearly a biased WP editor that should avoid edit this article. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Image
If images were water, this page is a dry, dry desert. What can we add? I've suggested a screenshot showing vandalism on the to do list. But since this article, at least currently, is concerned with 'reliability', page blanking etc wouldn't qualify. I think something like a diff screenshot would be good, though a screenshot of the vandalized page would also be okay. Can anyone provide any suggestions, or comments, on this head? Any other suggestions for images are also welcome, or, if you like, be italic [sic] and add one yourself. Richard001 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Images aren't water, and Wikipedia pages aren't landscapes; there is no need for any images. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New source
I found another source that might contain information useful for this article:

69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the following website mentions an article that passed WP:GAN even though it was about a totally non-notable theory:

This was not so much vandalism as a physician using Wikipedia to publish his new theory, instead of traditional peer-reviewed journals. (Possibly the only time that an article ever went directly from WP:GA to WP:AFD?) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a citation really necessary?
"A separate study suggests that in the great majority of cases, vandalism is noticed and reverted fairly quickly — so fast that most users will not be aware of it — but in some cases this does not happen.[citation needed]"

I'm sorry, but it should be self-evident that some vandalism slips through the cracks, especially on rarely viewed articles. The "citation needed" note comes of as a shameless attempt at discrediting and whitewashing criticism, even if it was done in good faith. --C civiero (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can cite my userpage:Items that stayed too long; using a permalink of course! Rich Farmbrough, 12:34 30 August 2008 (GMT).


 * You should be sorry, because that's an idiotic comment. References to studies should always be accompanied by a citation for the study. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual errors
This article has quite a few factual errors which should be cleaned up. For example, in the "anonymous editing" section, the disease listed should be Aarskog-Scott syndrome, not schizotypal personality disorder, and the updated section was "frequent features" instead of causes. Unfortunately, no sources were cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.128.176 (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed this example as per your concerns, and also because the notability of such examples (one in articles on the English Wikipedia) for the topic of this article is very questionable. Do you see other factual errors left in the current version? Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation 5

 * ^ Vu-Quoc, L., Configuration integral, 2008. Relevance? Rich Farmbrough, 12:43 30 August 2008 (GMT).

"Whether the information provided is uncontroversial and compliant to the standards"
What standards is that bullet referring to? VasileGaburici (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. Nobody gave any explanation on this dubious statement in two weeks. VG &#x260E; 18:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable incidents section
I've added this in an attempt to distinguish between experimental study results and (highly) mediatized, but possibly isolated, incidents. This section should stick to the facts as reported by sources, and avoid quoting sources that simply voice an opinion (add those to Criticism of Wikipedia instead). The tone of this section should be more NPOV than that of Criticism of Wikipedia, and as much as possible avoid the "waffling" commentary (Wikipedia said / critics said) than invariably follows any notable incident. I realize this is not always possible, e.g. quotations from The Register will inevitably be written in a tabloid/inflammatory style, and require some counterbalance quotations from others to maintain NPOV. I've moved some material from other parts of this article to this new section, but most material came from the factual parts of Criticism of Wikipedia. VasileGaburici (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who question the accuracy of Wikipedia...
...have no one to blame but themselves. When they're pointing at a lack of facts in Wikipedia, they're pointing to a lack of combating ignorance in themselves, as they can immediately alter and cite any readily available truths themselves. Lazy is all they are calling themselves when they complain that Wikipedia is bad at accuracy. You have no right to complain about ignorance if you're not willing to combat it! Tell anyone who says so that. 4.255.54.132 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes those trying to make Wikipedia more accurate don't succeed, e.g., see History of Logic Programming by Carl Hewitt and subsequently Development of Logic Programming: What went wrong, What was done about it, and What it might mean for the future and . --67.169.9.89 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For that matter, some articles are protected, or at least semi-protected. Personally, I choose to edit without an account. As such, I've been unable to correct a glaring mistake in the bacon article for months. It's been discussed on the talk page, but to no avail. Personally, I find it absurd that bacon is such a contentious issue that its article needs any protection whatsoever.
 * However, the fact remains, the article is still incorrect, and as an anonymous editor, I feel very much justified in my concerns over wikipedia's accuracy and reliability. (and, to be honest, I've actually used the bacon article as the easiest example of why my students aren't allowed to use wikipedia as a source. That, and the mebibyte thing) 209.90.134.188 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "You have no right to complain about ignorance if you're not willing to combat it!" Really? Because some articles are 'locked', and the last time I checked; we have the 'right' to free speech. Think before you speak, unless you want to give up that right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.204.119 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha. But seriously--you shouldn't say that. Wikipedia is like the government--there are problems that deserve to be complained about, which a single individual is incapable of solving. It's just too big. You could tell people that they should contribute, but that doesn't mean that they won't still have something to complain about when they do.Salvar (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Last time I looked, the First Amendment did not apply to privately-run websites; however, there are ways of correcting errors, by using the editprotected template on the Talk page of a protected article to request an edit. I don't understand how WP is like the government- it is at least cost-effective, since editors edit not for personal gain but for the advancement of knowledge. Oh course, there are those who think that this in an unworthy goal, but they tend not to last here very long. As for WP as a source, well of course, it is neither a primary nor a secondary source; it is a repository of knowledge based (in theory, at least) on existing reliable sources. -- Rodhull andemu  21:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for improving articles, not for editorial comments. Please contribute something useful or STFU. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. Sabrebattletank (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding. Wikipedia is closley watched by those who are swift to delete any edit or change made by those whose activity history is deemed "not worthy" no matter how factual or well cited it may be. I once was being BOLD as suggested,and was composing a page on a company which was the largest of it's kind in the Mid-Western US, and after one (1) sentence, it was deleted and blocked becuse "I failed to show the relivance of the subject" as if that could possibly be done in a single sentence. Wikipedia is good for playing "Dead or Alive" and to find REAL sources, and not much else Cosand (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for tone
Some phrases I ran into such as "...before a 'Good Samaritan' (if there were any)..." and "Wikipedia is unusual in allowing completely anonymous editing" didn't seem encyclopedic. I'm too busy to make more than minor fixes, so may anybody please check this page for me? Thanks.  21655  ταλκ / 01ҁ 20:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A disturbing edit
(Nov 2008) containing large quotes of carl hewitt's knol writings and stances. The article is being used in part (due to these edits) as a forum for reposting Hewitt's complaints. Also this: (above). There's a likely possibility that this may be inserted by Hewitt himself, a user who has had issues including sock-puppetry and has consistently tried to edit for self-promotional purposes. Either way it needs more eyeballs and probably cleanup. FT2 (Talk 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed all of the hearsay, based upon nothing more than an involved party's partial quotations of private correspondence with an opponent. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Libelous comments concerning Professor Hewitt
The Observer quotations about Professor Hewitt are libelous and should be removed.--67.169.48.162 (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are they not true? --Tango (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Professor Hewitt says not at Corruption of Wikipedia on Google Knol.--67.180.249.167 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF??
It's astonishing beyond belief that in this article, above all others, we have such poor sourcing, and writing, but then I suppose that's politics for you. As a result of the immediately above thread, I have removed two sections from the article which would be unacceptable even in an article about a cartoon character. Sorry, but not only are we an encyclopedia, we are a responsible encyclopedia. Of anyone has issue with this, edit-warring will not be acceptable. A request for comment may be, or an Arbitration Case, but anyone editing here should be fully aware of WP:BLP, and if not, I would suggest some revision before proceeding further. -- Rodhull andemu  22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Operational definition of reliability
I think there should be a definition of what it means for an online encyclopedia to be "reliable". In this case, isn't it just a synonym for "accuracy"? Am I missing something here? Dastle (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

recent Wikipedia hoax
There was a recent Wikipedia hoax that lead to several newspapers using false quotes. Has anyone else heard about this? --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiTrust
Here are some external links, which are related to the reliability of Wikipedia. --Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Main Page - WikiTrust
 * Main Page - The UCSC Wikipedia Trust Project
 * YouTube - How (Much) to Trust Wikipedia (time: 53:39)
 * Home Page - Luca de Alfaro
 * Luca de Alfaro - personal home page ‎(Luca)‎

New Project
Anyone who watches this page, and believes that there are problems that have structurl causes and thus may be helped with structural reform, please come to this new project: WP:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference Error
Reference #26 just shows an error on the page. Could somebody find another link in that website? Perhaps the page moved? Jeremjay 24  ''' 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the link is still broken Ottawahitech (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed using the miracle of the Wayback Machine. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Crisis and controversy surrounding Milan M.Cvikl book in Slovenia
This subsection is vague - it doesn't go into the nature of the crisis other than mention accusations of plagiarism. It also doesn't say which Slovenians were critical of Wikipedia - remember WP:V.Autarch (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipaedia "F"
I my grad school, you got an automatic "F" if you used Wikipedia as a source. Any other schools that have this policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.160.23.2 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. See discussion at Academic_use. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's silly to have a wiki article demonstrating wiki "ACCURACY."
There is no doubt Wikipedia is reliable. Legions of dutiful and inexperienced editors who know just enough to be dangerous lord upon legions of inexperienced authors who regularly mis-report material facts about any variety of topics. It's reliable in that this will go on ad infinitum. However, the ACCURACY of factual information in articles is still seriously in question and any study which calls upon itself to demonstrate accuracy is absurd. How many of you would be willing to ride on an airplane built with tools or using navigation equipment calibrated using itself as the standard?68.225.12.144 (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's generally reliable only if you read a B-class article or better. The C-class and stub classes are not guaranteed to be anything like true in certain topics, the religion and many philosophy articles is the unreliable underground of Wikipedia. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Obscure statistics on academic citations of Wikipedia
Section "Expert opinion", subsection "Academia" has a table listing the number of Wikipedia citations in Elsevier's ScienceDirect database. I think this is a very good way of showing the growing acceptance of Wikipedia by academics, but there are two problems. First of all, the link to the search results (footnote) is broken. Second, it's not clear to me at all how (using which search parameters) the numbers were obtained. I tried to reproduce the search results using the search string "wikipedia.org/wiki". For the year 2009, for example, I get 533 hits if I search just the References sections of articles, and I get 820 hits if I search the whole articles. I didn't manage to get the 614 hits that are listed in the table for 2009. When the table is remade, all search parameters (search string, search parts of articles etc.) should be stated in the footnote, otherwise it will remain mysterious how the numbers were obtained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.3.251 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo
Hi, I find that the english wikipedia has a pro serbian slant to it on the issue of kosovo. it is not reliable for facts. Most of the facts about the names of the places in albanian have been removed. there is a constant unbalanced editing going on. Everything on kosovo needs checking, it is very annoying. James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

Misplaced para under "False biographical information"?
The last paragraph under Reliability_of_Wikipedia is:

This paragraph does seem to fit in this context. I suspect that it's a copy/paste error. It should probably be somewhere else, but it's not obvious to me where. Alternatively, reworded slightly to mention bio info. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This paragraph is not part of the content I've copied over from Criticism of Wikipedia. I might take a look at this later, but the paragraph is related to the section, which is about a specific type of false information.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

American Renaissance (magazine)
Per this revert diff of The racialist magazine American Renaissance asserted that Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias in racial topics. with reference: Nicholas Stix: [ http://amren.com /features/200807wikipedia.html Wikipedia on Race – ‘World’s biggest encyclopedia’ serves up propaganda]. American Renaissance. July 2007. Per: RS. Is it really necessary to go to the WP:RSN noticeboard about it? I've seen far more credible organizational publications deleted as refs from articles. [Later apologies for not checking out publication thoroughly. [ http://www.amren.com /ar/2007/08/ This array of 2007 articles] and [ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2006/04/jews_and_americ.php this Jared Taylor article] on Jews show they are blatantly racist and not very subtly antisemitic.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not self-published. The article by Nicholas Stix was published by AR that also promote it on its frontpage. The source is also not questionable. What part of the sentence is questionable for you? AR is one of the leading representants of racialist and white nationalists point of view and information is not presented like fact but fact about AR´s opinion. --Dezidor (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Geez, all the times I've been accused of antisemitism for use as a reference some relatively innocuous lefty anti-Zionist publication - or for once posting a link to a mainstream article now only available on some alleged Holocaust denial site which I used without paying sufficient attention - and then had nasty explanations thrown in my face like "Racist (or racialist)/antisemitic/bigoted sites aren't WP:RS!!" -- I'm just amazed that no one has challenged this. I'm not going to debate it with you since I'm asking the question myself now. If no neutral editor explains it in 24 hours, I will bring it to WP:RSN because I just feel like there's some double standard being applied, or someone isn't paying attention.
 * As for the gender bias stuff, there's a lot more older and new criticism on all that I'm researching so can rewrite with better description of who said what by tonight or tomorrow morning. First draft less than perfect, but a start. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source for the opinion of AR. It's attributed to AR. Of course its not a reliable source for any kind of fact (except maybe the page number), but as an attributed opinion its fine from a WP:RS standpoint. Another question is if the opinion of a small right-wing crackpot publication is important enough to be included, per WP:UNDUE. From an international point of view, when I read "American Renaissance" my gut reaction is "who? what?", so I have serious doubts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me quote all of RS, esp since only the self-published was addressed:
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
 * The last two sentences are operative ones. Let's face it articles on organizations or publications with far more mainstream WP:RS than American Renaissance magazine have been deleted. (Like my former DC peace group.) I can only speculate why the "antiracism" faction hasn't tried to. (Not that I in anyway support the threats of violence that closed down the conference by the way.) So I guess I'm getting an opinion together after all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The only argument against American Renaissance is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia should present all relevant points of view not just what liberal New York Times write about so-called "gender bias" etc. Claim that some editors violetes neutral point of view and promote mainstream point of view without mention opposing points of view in another cases is not valid argument. Claim that some Zionists at Wikipedia accuse left-wingers of antisemitism wherever they can is also not argument to fight against pro-white source like they fight against lefty anti-Zionist publication you like. Wikipedia is not form paper and we should be tolerant to all relevant points of you not close minded people who delete everything they personally do not like. --Minlesa (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, only reason I haven't gone to WP:RS yet is this might be about the only article where American Renaissance's opinion on 3rd parties would be allowed to be used because it is a criticism of Wikipedia itself. However, since I don't think I'll get sufficient NPOV editors here, I'll go to WP:RSN Monday and see if that might possibly be the reason it has survived so long. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Minlesa: No, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not the only argument against it. Firstly it is a valid question whether it is a reliable source (however for the opinion of the organisation it is probably valid), secondly, and even more relevant, is the question of undue weight. To my mind the answer to the last question is clearly: yes, it is definitely undue weight to include the opinion of a fringe American magazine here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI: Editors discussing that source should know that Wikipedia has an extensive history with Nicholas Stix, who likely made numerous self-promotional edits to the project, including posting a biography and adding lots of links to his blogs, in addition to engaging in widespread incivility.   Will Beback    talk    10:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An example of his criticism of Wikipedia while still an active editor:
 * [Wikipedia] is a false flag operation designed to spread leftwing lies among readers who know nothing of your agenda, while at the same time suckering real encyclopedists into it and seeking to waste their time and exhaust their energy, and stalk, censor, and intimidate them. In other words, it's a mirror of the humanities and social sciences in today’s university.
 * Make of that what you will.   Will Beback    talk    10:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Saddhiyama: One short sence is obviously not UNDUE. This is UNDUE but it contains opinion that some group of editors really likes so they revert it again and again. It looks that articles about liberal bias are truthful. --Dezidor (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any coverage of a truly fringe POV is undue. Even one short sentence in the biography on George W. Bush about the belief that he is a reptilian would be undue, for example. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.   Will Beback    talk    12:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But AR is well known pro-white group that cooperate with notable people like: American_Renaissance_(magazine) (some of them are university professors or notable writers) not fringe group. That´s why it can´t be UNDUE. --Dezidor (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fringe POVs can be held by well-known and notable groups or individuals. David Icke, to use my earlier example.   Will Beback    talk    13:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you call AR "fringe"? Just because you DONTLIKE their position. --Dezidor (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I call David Icke fringe because his ideas are not shared by reputable sources. I kind of like the idea of Queen Elizabeth being a reptile. ;)   Will Beback    talk    13:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And AR ideas are shared by reputable sources such as professors (Rushton, Levin, Gottfried, Lynn...), authors and politians. Yes, they are in minority now, but are obviously not "fringe". --Dezidor (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not AR's views on race and intelligence. The question here is the Stix article about Wikipedia published by AR. Have you seen similar views espoused by reputable sources?   Will Beback    talk    13:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is AR's views on race and and way how Wikipedia present this issue. They conclude that it has strong liberal bias. It is not just Stix because they promote that article at frontpage for long time. Tim Anderson, a senior lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney, conclude that Wikipedia has an American and corporate bias and he has one paragraph in this article. AR statement is just one sentence in paragraph where many sources claim a liberal bias of Wikipedia, and the issue of race is just one piece next to the global warming, abortion, immigration etc.--Dezidor (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is is AmRen mag a WP:RS for opinion about 3rd parties, which I doubt the community would support. [ http://amren.com /features/200807wikipedia.html This page] says AmRen mag published Nicholas Stix article and his blog seems to confirm he might have permitted its use. However, given questions Will Beback brought up on AmRen talk page, I guess better evidence might be necessary.
 * I think it possibly would be ok to have a section on "fringe group" criticisms since there are so many such groups, if enough of them commented on Wikipeda. Then we only would have to argue over whether The Final Call, Bitch (magazine), Front Page Magazine, Libertarian Party News, etc. were fringe enough or not for that section. However, just having one such source sticking out so noticeably there is vs. WP:RS not to mention WP:UNDUE.
 * FYI, thanks for reminding I meant to put a WP:BLP tag on the list of Am Ren contributors since under WP:BLP you would have to provide a link proving those individuals had written for the publication, be it a link to the article or a link to a list of articles the magazine says it has published at the top of the section. (And I've done this a number of times over the years, often cleaning out nonsourced individuals in controversial claims.) I see only one has a ref. Otherwise there's no way of knowing if there is an error or if some vandal stuck something in there.
 * Also note, if Am Ren ends up being quoted as a credible source in as many mainstream publications as SPLC, it might also become more reputable here. Of course, many Wikipedia ditors also question SPLC's financial and other motives, as well as its research, in some of its reports. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fyi, just put this up here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Mr. Beback. I deleted the entry last time. Do you want to volunteer this time or do we need more consensus? (I did put a notice on a relevant Wikiproject but not sure how active it is.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as not so much a RS issue as a weight and notability issue. Clearly the publication is a reliable source for its own views. Whether that view is notable enough to merit inclusion in an article would seem to be to depend on whether any other unrelated, reliable secondary sources reported AR's views on the matter. The answer appears to be "no". In many, if not most, of the instances of criticism cited in this section, an independent reliable secondary source is reporting on the criticism. Those sources are making the determination that the particular criticism or the particular critic is notable enough to merit reportage. Unless this article is intended to simply be a list of every bit of published criticism of Wikipedia regardless of source (and I can see a perfectly valid argument for that approach) I would not think that the views of this publication are notable enough to merit inclusion in the article. I would suggest that, if the direction of the article is not to simply be a list, that the same criteria be applied to the other sources being cited as well. Fladrif (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At this diff at the WP:RS Noticeboard Will Beback presented a bunch of WP:RS calling American Renaissance an extremist group. RS says we don't use references that "include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist". So I'd say the matter is settled. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Conflicts involving Wikipedia policy makers"
The material was cut down to remove the citation and details, which seems inappropriate. Half of the section, as now composed, is about a charge that Wikipedia is a cult. That may be a legitimate accusation, but it is not related to conflicts. Also, we don't mention anywhere the Wikiscanner revelations concerning Dielbold, etc. I propose to retitle the section "Conflicts of interest", to restore the citation, to add the Wikiscanner material, and to move the cult allegation to the Community of Wikipedia article, probably in the "Motive" section. Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    05:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the cult accusation fits better in the Community of Wikipedia article. I'm not sure that I agree about merging the Wikiscanner info into the current "Conflicts involving Wikipedia policy makers" section.  The article is divided into assessments and incidents.  The Wikiscanner stuff in general seems broad enough that it does not belong in the incidents section.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tracked down the material removal to this edit by FT2, who stated that the removal was needed per WP:BLP. At the moment, I don't have an opinion about that, so I'll let the two of you discuss it.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

POV issues
As Conrothmas pointed out, this article, especially its introduction, is cherry picking studies and fails to properly address criticism of Wikipedia's reliability, merely showing support of Wikipedia's reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummonk (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article contains a number of examples in the Notable incidents section describing how incorrect, even deliberately dishonest material existed on Wikipedia for a period of time. It acknowledges that this is difficult to totally prevent. So it's not "merely showing support". What else would you like to see? HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lead section (introduction) is overly positive and needs to be made more neutral per NPOV. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For it to be cherry picked, what other studies are there that show the converse? If there are other studies, then I want them in the article, but i'm not away of any. In the absence of any others, the article would be balanced, if these are the only ones.Rememberway (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the "Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles" section above, there's one study which is somewhat less flattering to Wikipedia. Any opinion on that study?  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed my tag was removed. I will add studies such as the study above when I get the time. Until then please do not remove the tag without first fixing the article. Ummonk (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As Rememberway said. I track this article and if I come across significant studies or views I take account of them in the article. Since 2007 mainstream academic studies, papers and coverage have almost entirely come to the same conclusion. Between 2005 and 2011 coverage has become gradually more and more similar, and less skeptical - the routine comments are that Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate, can be used for a first step, is reasonably reliable, but omissions and poor readability are still issues and errors and vandalism can occasionally happen. Todays latest paper is yet another saying exactly the same, but in politics rather than science.


 * If there is significant missing information please do list it - it will get a careful review. But a POV tag does not mean the mainstream views weren't as expected. Unless there is considerable coverage missed, the article is fundamentally, balanced. However as requested leaving the tag on in case it misses a significant number of contrary academic studies or significant views, or some aspect is unbalanced. FT2 (Talk 10:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the studies done have made the cherry picking by selecting a few articles of say A-class or better, while me myself know of quite a few really trashy articles here and there. The perceived POV is not a neutrality issue per Wikipedia policies, but rather by the editor's gut feeling, I think. And of course I agree – probably that's one of the most important reasons why I'm still here. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The section Wikipedia editing model should be checked for structure and use of peacock wording f.ex. "Wikipedia is a pioneer in", it is pretty acceptable but needs some language trimming and structuring, the two last paragraphs being not quite neutral.


 * By the way: the Encyclopedia Britannica vitriolic attack on the Nature survey should mostly be compared to the sometimes (a few times) very hot debates going on on the talk pages. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Article feedback tool
I just found out that there is an Article feedback tool only because I was prompted by it as I was reading a page. It is getting wider use as of May 9, 2011. This article does not mention that tool, or other tools Wikipedia may be working on to rate/assess or improve reliability. Are there other tools like that in the works? A section on that specific tool and those types of project would be a good idea. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

English language only?
In this edit, History2007 restrictied the scope of the article to the English language content of Wikipedia. History2007 thought that there was "nothing about French, Italian, Chinese Wki etc. in article". This is not quite true. While the vast majority of the article is about the English language content, there are facts about content in other languages. I found the following examples:
 * In the "Comparative studies" section, two studies of German language content are described.
 * In the "Tools for testing the reliability of articles" section, one sentence states that Wiki-Watch can be used to analyze German language content.
 * In the "False biographical information" section, one incident is described for Wikipedia’s French language content.

The article is now inconsistent. The options I see are:
 * Remove the qualification in the first sentence limiting the article to English language content.
 * Remove the content dealing with languages other than English from this article. In this case, it would be best to rename the article to make it clear that the article is limited to English language content.

I prefer the first option, but will wait for others' opinions before making a change. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you had to fish to find those examples. And still there is nothing about Chinese, Italian, Portuguese or other Wikipedias. The mentions of the other languages are just token references. And that actually brings about an interesting point. What does Wikipedia mean in general? I the early days the English version was the key item, and it still remains so. But now there is a wealth of content elsewhere - specially on local topics such as cities, buildings, artists etc. I was going to discuss "cross-language" consistency later, so for now let us just refer to what the article does.


 * The best way will probably be to say at the top that this article "primarily" refers to English-Wiki - because that is what it does. So there is need for clarifying what Wikipedia means. As far as I can see (and as far as I know) the Japanese Wikipedia has not been tested. Now, does it have accurate info? Who knows? Does it have valuable info? In some cases, probably.


 * And we should remember that the other Wikis are no longer isolated islands, because people do look up info in them and add to the English language Wiki. So the reliability of those will affect the English Wikipedia through reliability osmosis. And that does not mean a reduction in reliability, but can also enhance it. In the area of art history, life of artists etc. the other Wikis have pretty good information - but I have not compared what they say about physics.


 * The long and short of it is that the other Wikis will not be forever ignored, because they have useful info on many topics, at times more info than the English version. The eventual very interesting topic will be to wait until someone does a "cross-wiki" study, information osmosis analysis, etc., then we will see. The eventual goal will be to have harmony between the top 10 Wikis - they can certainly benefit from each other. History2007 (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Academic references ?!?
Does anyone know how those numbers were obtained? I tried to replicate them so I could update the table but I just can't get the values for the years 2003-2009 to match up. If this isn't resolved, the table should be deleted or remade with defined search paramaters and reproducable results. The current situation is simply unacceptable.--U5K0 (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)