User:JohnWittle/Wikipedia

This is a paper I'm writing for school.

Wikipedia, and other projects that affiliate with it are hosted by Wikimedia, a service that makes broad wikiprojects for those with ranging interests. The servers have grown so large, that they have to be stored in small warehouses at various locations all over the world. Such projects include: Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikipedia, Wikitext, and the newly addition Wikiversity.

It's a common misconception that Wikipedia is an invalid source. Upon questioning, the average person will list the reason, ”Because anyone can edit it, and you don’t know if the information is true.” In fact, the average vandalism is reverted within five minutes, the majority within seconds. [1] [2] [3]. False information is debated upon nearly instantly. If one puts false information on an article, he will be contacted on the talk page of the article and by email and asked to provide sources. There is, in fact, more debate and communication going on on Wikipedia than actual edits. [4]

There is also a belief that being peer-reviewed makes an encyclopedia more accurate. While this may be true, studies show that Wikipedia has the same or less errors than Encyclopedia Britannica, [5] [6], the most mainstream encyclopedia to date. In addition, Britannica can only fix their errors by publishing several hundred thousand new copies, and then wait for them to slowly seep into households. Most likely a majority of homes will keep their current copy of Britannica as opposed to go out and buying another set. On the other hand, Wikipedia can correct their errors in seconds, and it is instantly changed for everyone’s copy of Wikipedia. Therefore, Wikipedia is much more flexible.

Stephen Colbert, a popular newscaster who preaches a liberal point of view by satirically pretending to back a conservative point of view, introduced the idea that truth is negotiable. The truth is, of course, most negotiable. There isn’t some sort of pool of true facts that exists, and whenever we have a disagreement we just go drink from it and we are enlightened. People decide all truth, so long as there is evidence. You might even argue that truth doesn’t exist. Truth is a man-made concept.

Daniel Brandt is the man behind the anti-Wikipedia sentiment. He runs a website called www.wikipedia-watch.org, which “watches” Wikipedia to make sure it is not breaking any rules and so forth. He personally has had an incident with Wikipedia on which an article on him was written and he believed it was a violation of privacy. He began to threaten legal action if the article was not removed. Ironically, Wikipedia’s “Notable” policy had flagged Daniel Brandt’s article as non-noteworthy and was going to remove it until he became notable by threatening Wikipedia. On his page he keeps a list of all the administrators’ full names and cities, insultingly putting a “Teenager on Board!” icon for administrators who are teenagers, in addition to an insulting comic. [8]

Please excuse the references. They are done in a way so that it can be posted into a simple text file.

Vandalism Reverts. Please look at the time stamp: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Icke&diff=74208959&oldid=74208846 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windmill&diff=74209235&oldid=74209002 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Hawking&diff=74209589&oldid=74209012

Discussion of Information [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASocietal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=49375825&oldid=49373579

Accuracy of Information [5] http://www.emergentchaos.com/archives/2004/09/wikipedia_vs_br.html [6] http://glocalman.typepad.com/_/2005/02/wikipedia_vs_en.html

Daniel Brand [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt [8] http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/geek7.gif