User:Luigifan/What good is Wikipedia?

I've noticed that, at least where I live, a lot of people have poor opinions of Wikipedia. They feel that it is an inferior resource that is rightfully overshadowed by other sites. As a satisfied Wikipedian, this negative PR really bugs me. In this page, I will list the most common arguments against Wikipedia, and then I will proceed to debunk them. Anyone else who wants to add to this should feel free to do so.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so it is not accurate.
If you paid any attention to Wikipedia's mission statement, you would know that it always strives to be as accurate as possible. Indeed, it is the very fact that Wikipedia has thousands of editors that makes it one of the most accurate resources on the web. Other encyclopedias are dependent on the knowledge of a single person or a small group, but because anyone can add to Wikipedia, virtually no facts go uncollected here. Besides, we have several policies and guidelines designed to ensure that this website provides the most factual information that it possibly can.

Well, not everyone has good intentions! Since anyone can edit this site, it could easily become a warehouse of nonsense!
Believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about. Here at Wikipedia, we call this phenomenon vandalism. It is true that some people have nothing better to do with their lives than to amuse themselves by wreaking havoc on innocent websites, including [but in no way limited to] Wikipedia. However, I can assure you that we have many safeguards against vandals and trolls. First of all, any instances of vandalism can be easily undone through a process known as reverting. Since vandals sometimes revert to their own inane jokes, there is a three-revert rule that penalizes anyone who engages in a senseless edit war (defined as a single user (or, more likely, group of users) reverting a page back and forth three times or more in a single day.) We can also deter the individuals responsible from vandalizing the site through warnings and blocks. Both are exactly what they sound like. A warning notifies the user that their edits have been reverted, and, despite the soft language, that vandalism is not appreciated. If the vandal persists in their immature pranks, they can be blocked, which means that they are unable to edit any part of Wikipedia other than their own user talk pages for a set period of time - this period can even be indefinite, if the targeted user is too much of a nuisance to regain their posting privileges. (I know how blocks work from personal experience - I once got blocked myself, albeit only for one day.) If many vandals target a single page, the page can be protected to prevent it from being edited by potential pranksters. If a page is bombarded by several anonymous (and immature) users, it may be semi-protected, which means that it can only be edited by registered Wikipedians. (In addition, only registered Wikipedians can create Wikipedia articles in the first place.) If even registered users cannot be trusted with the integrity of the page, it may be fully protected, meaning that it can only be edited by admins. Admins are the only ones able to block users, protect or semi-protect articles, or delete articles. Yes, articles can be deleted if they do not contribute to Wikipedia's goal of providing a verifiable and factual encyclopedia, and although only admins are authorized to carry out the deletion, ordinary users can form committees to request that an article be deleted. Similar committees can also be formed to request that a troublemaking user be blocked. There is even a project that has been set up to conduct research on vandalism. So, in short, although Wikipedia can - and often does - get vandalized, the damage never lasts long, and the punks responsible quickly learn - the hard way - that you don't mess around with Wikipedia if you value your Internet privileges. We're not merciless, though; we recognize that most vandals are simply seeking attention, so most vandals are simply ignored in order to drive them away through the power of boredom.

How does reverting work, anyways?
...I provided a link to the page explaining reversions, didn't I? Well, anyways, the process of reverting seems complicated, but it's actually rather simple. Each page has its own edit history, which can be accessed by clicking on the "history" tab above the main article. (These tabs also allow you to switch between an article's "main" page and its talk page, edit the page, and, if you are a registered user, move the page to another article or add it to [or remove it from] your watchlist.) Anyways, once you are in the page history, you will see a list of recent edits to the page, organized by the time at which they took place. Simply click on the version that you want to "restore", and that version will come up. Click on the "edit this page" tab, then all you have to do is click on the "Save page" button (though you should probably provide an edit summary explaining why you're changing the page to an earlier version.)

Actually, if you really need help learning how to use Wikipedia, you should probably visit the site's built-in tutorial. This essay is meant to debunk arguments against the value of Wikipedia. It is not meant to serve as a tutorial for noobs and newbs, as Wikipedia already has such a thing. If you've read the tutorial and still don't know how to make your way around the site, ask for help!!! Most Wikipedians will be eager to welcome a new member into the community and help them to learn how to use the site. In fact, that's how I learned how to use Wikipedia; through trial-and-error, experimentation, and lots and lots of questions. I didn't even know about the tutorial until I stumbled across it while looking for links to project pages to back up my points for this essay. Trust me, just fool around for a few months and you'll get the hang of it.

What do you mean by "Main page"? Doesn't Wikipedia have a main page?
*sigh* Actually, I'm not referring to the page that you see after selecting your language. That is Wikipedia's overall main page, essentially the face of the site, which contains various news stories and a link to the day's featured article. The main page of any article is its content/user/project page... basically, the page that contains the actual content. This is kept separate from the discussion page for reasons that I can't find the words to explain; however, they likely have something to do with making articles easy to read and keeping them at a manageable size.

So, Wikipedia has ways to punish bad behavior. What about rewarding good behavior?
First off, the blocking policy is not intended to punish bad behavior - it's meant to curtail damage to Wikipedia by cutting it off at its source. The article on the blocking policy clearly states this, although it uses different words than my essay. As for rewarding good behavior, Wikipedia has an answer. That answer is Barnstars, which are basically little "award" templates which can easily be placed on a userpage to commend their constructive participation. (I don't know what happens if you try to give a barnstar to yourself, but I would assume that the rest of the community would be less than amused. And, trust me, they would be able to find out that you gave the barnstar to yourself; see my explanation of edit histories to learn how, or, better yet, visit Wikipedia's project page on the subject.  Anyways, the whole point of barnstars is that they are marks of recognition from the rest of the Wikipedia community, so placing them on your userpage yourself would be a bad idea.)  There are many different barnstars, so you should check out their project page to learn more.

What if I make two accounts and have the second account bestow barnstars on the first account?
...That would be a bad move. What you have just described is known as sockpuppetry, and it is heavily frowned upon. It is a common technique used by those pesky vandals I just finished ranting about, so Wikipedia has specialized channels for identifying such miscreants. Attempting to fool the system through the use of multiple accounts will likely get you blocked, especially when you use them to generate the illusion of consensus. Seriously, I've dealt with sockpuppets myself, so I can tell you from personal experience that you cannot cheat the system and hope to get away with it!

Are there any bad barnstars?
...This is not a tutorial, it is an argument in favor of Wikipedia. Regardless, I will answer the question. There are, indeed, bad barnstars, although most of them are tongue-in-cheek. For an example, see the form for nominations for the "village stocks".