User:Utestudent/Survey

I am working with another student on a research paper to explore Wikipedia as a means of constructing knowledge. I would greatly appreciate any response to the following questions: (Feel free to email your responses to me at utestudent@gmail.com or post comments here)

Have you cited wikipedia as a source in your own work/projects?

 * Yes, i find it very VERY helpful
 * Yes, but never for anything major.
 * Yes. This is the best source in the entire world! Go Wikipedia! Yay! Hooray! (Wikimachine 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC))
 * YES great place to start
 * Yes although some teachers do not believe it is a reliable source, the information at the bottom of the page referencing the author's sources is very helpful
 * Nope, my teacher threatens to fail anyone who does...but I still use it anyway, for the ideas. --Osbus 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Its a great way to find about interesting facts or just get started on a topic for a major project, but I wouldnt recommend using it as a real source. However I really appreciate teh way many articles contain links and sources to other websites
 * No; my teachers don't think it's reliable enough, but apparently Encyclopædia Britannica is. joturn e r 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, used as a single source in a graduate level paper.JBEvans 22:48, 3 --bī-RŌ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but never as a large final project or anything. --Gadren 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, once, the lecturer didnt seem to have a problem with it. Ollie 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No wouldn't dream of it. --Banana04131 03:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, specifically Salad and Trebuchet. Davidpk212 12:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the college reference library and LEXIS have that job. I use it for an overview, though. Consequentially 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I often use it for general research. Alexander Roche 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a starting point and as an overwiew, but mostly I use the cited sources and esternal links for further information. Never as a single source. --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I often count Wikipedia among the many resources used for a project.
 * The question is, is there any such thing as a truly authoritative source? Compared to Wikipedia, multi-volume encyclopedias are fundamentally flawed by their recruitment process: established (read: non-innovative) scholars are selected to write the articles. In my classes, I get down on anyone who cites ANY source uncritically. The truth is that all knowledge is shaped by the social circumstances under which it was produced, at least to some extent, and a critical reader knows this. I try to teach my students to cite sources like this:  "According to research conducted at the X center for cancers of the x, the best therapy is radiation. However, more than 90% of the center's practitioners are radiologists, not surgeons." That's the way the world is, folks. I love Wikipedia because it shoves this right in your face, with no apologies.Bryan 01:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, use it for quick reference but I would never cite it. - BanyanTree 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I cite Wikipedia, because the shear breadth of it makes up for any lack of depth Sir Grant the Small 03:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only for certain teachers, and even those make you double check it with something else. Great for a research starter, gives a nice overview.
 * Yes, most of my teachers don't mind it. It depends on the subject I'm researching.
 * No; I use Wikipedia to gather some information sometimes, but then I follow through to the original sources to cite. It's a starting point, but not an end point. I don't think that it would considered authoritative by the people who matter. -- Mithent 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes; I used it for school work because it is quicker than other search methods and contains more information. -- Isabella123 5 May 2006
 * Yes; I cite it solely for the purpose of Wikipedia evangelism. Such citations would normally be frowned upon in a history graduate program, so I only cite WP for unusual or widely known things, or for quoting concise overviews of concepts.--ragesoss 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I often refer to Wikipedia for a good overview, but I don't cite it. Usually the information is not specific enough, and I turn to print or credible online research sources (like Questia, Lexis-Nexis, etc.) for better information. Besides, teachers generally don't like students citing Wikipedia (and I think they're justified), and librarians absolutely hate it. --Leapfrog314 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, due to the fact that is edited by so many authors, most of them by a pseudonym, it is not technically a source. I do use it for general reference, however.  --Tom 03:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's reliable enough, and often is not detailed enough for specific scientific topics. It's more useful for general information about a topic I know nothing about, than for specific information on a topic on which I am a specialist. --Zvika 15:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only once. It was a featured article, my professor accepted it, and it was the best source I could find. I wouldn't use it regularly, and most of my professors wouldn't accept it. BookishAcolyte 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have, but my teachers aren't going to allow it next year. Too bad... Mimz 17:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have for blog posts and other posts in online forums, but wouldn't for anything serious. The better Wikipedia articles will give you a reliable source to cite anyway. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only for unimportant things or small assignments, like blogs or minor essays. I usually use Wiki as a quick overview sorta thing. Copysan 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It's not that accurate – Gurch 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, my professors actually direct us to Wikipedia, and have cited it themselves. --Jon Cates 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, due to credibility concerns and anonymous authorship. I prefer to use it as a general reference. Come to think of it, I haven't cited a non-specialty encyclopedia for years.--Marysunshine 00:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! Oh, just because it has a big name and people are paid to review it means it's more reliable? Why contribute to something if you don't use it? -- Chris   Ccool2ax  03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (login unstuck itself)
 * No. I'm only in high school, so I'm not required to do much referencing, but I wouldn't. Wikipedia is great and all, but I wouldn't actually reference it; there's too likely a chance that a little or a lot of the information on a given wikipage is wrong. Vandalism is quickly dealt with, yes, but the topic in the wikipage can be so specialized that people who knows a lot about it are few, and thus they do not come around that often to see errors in the page and correct them. --bī-RŌ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only for untechnical stuff e.g. the date a particular law came into force. Cynical 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's way too unreliable (they let people like me edit!!!???)--
 * All the time. I threw my copy of WORLD BOOK out into the trash!!!WilliamThweatt 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, to get a reasonably formatted statement of a complicated mathematical equation that I already knew to be correct from prior research. GRBerry 02:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, and if I were running a class, I would not allow my students to quote from Wikipedia. On the other hand, I'd highly recommend that they use Wikipedia as a starting point for their research, and that they use the links that it provides.
 * Yes, I have it set as my homepage and as one of my favourites. It is always my first stop for research and information, it was especially helpful when looking up things for coursework. I always credit it in my bibliographies (when applicable).
 * Yes, but I also look for other sources. Deirdre 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. It's OK to list as a resource, but an encyclopedia should never be cited as a source for an important fact. Dicklyon 00:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only for small projects. I'm still in middle school, so teachers will allow a lot of stuff that high school teachers probably wouldn't. -- Clarinetplayer 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got an A on that assignment so i guess it helped. 70.127.34.98 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you view Wikipedia in terms of credibility?

 * for the most part very very credible and those articles that arnt tend to be flaged 98% of th time so...its good
 * Credibility on some issues are a bit iffy for me. I've found some pretty large mistakes in some larger articles (at one point one of the physical properties of an element was completly off).  Wikipedia is a great place to start research and get a feel for a topic or subject.  However, I still do not consider Wikipedia a credible source for major papers or reports.
 * That really depend on the nature of the content. For example, a highly technical topic on advance mathematical logic tend to be credible, because anyone who edit/post such topics tend to be competent in the field. (Not to mention that the editor most likely took more than a few things straight off a book, instead of from his/her memory).  More popular topics requires more skepticism.
 * Yes. It's credible. (Wikimachine 18:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Credible in every use for me.--58.165.242.177 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been accurate every time I've used it...so it's credible in my experience. --Osbus 21:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it's credible. I don't see why an encyclopedia with maybe 100 editors is more reliable than one with 6.5 billion editors. joturn e r 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires users have a healthy degree of skepticism. That said, it is useful when looking for an overview of a subject. That's what an encyclopaedia does anyway isn't it? JBEvans 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see Wikipedia as sufficiently credible. --Gadren 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally pretty credible. It's much more credible in 'black and white' areas than it is in those areas where opinions/self-gain take hold, i.e. scientific articles vs political biographies. Ollie 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see wikipedia as a credibel source of information, although i cannot say it is very accurate as it is constantly changing, which is useful for some dynamic topics. Prof 07:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The credibility is stronger in scientific or historical articles where it's easy to distinguish fact from fiction. Articles on politics or articles that cover less-broadly known topics should be taken with a grain of salt, though. Consequentially 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia is credible, so long as it is well moderated, but still allows for general freedom. Alexander Roche 21:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very credible, except for where it becomes too un-NPOV or interpretative. --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Increasingly, I find myself turning to Wikipedia whenever I'm curious about something new. Typically, I am rewarded, sometimes deeply rewarded, but -- as with ANY source -- I want independent conformation before I believe it. Bryan 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Credible in what it claims to be, rather than what others think it should be. Getting on a soapbox, I've seen some media sources state that articles tagged with NPOV, etc reduce the credibility of Wikipedia, when I see the ability of Wikipedia to identify and mark out such articles as a strength. - BanyanTree 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For political topics, wikipedia is crap! Too much bias one way or the other. For plain old facts, it's as good ans anything else. arfon 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * People are people, People are dumb, and people make mistakes. So,isn't it better to have a mistake on an open-source, user-developed site than something set in ink? Sir Grant the Small 03:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone can check you, it HAS to be reliable. I always check to make sure the page isn't under an edit war or some other warning label, but otherwise it's good in my eyes.
 * At least as credible as most printed sources if you use it correctly (ie check History), and much more credible than many printed sources. JackyR 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty credible, predominantly for factual topics as mentioned above. I wouldn't like to trust any specific fact on Wikipedia, however, for all that the overview is normally good. -- Mithent 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I find much of it fairly credible, though sometimes people tend to mess with certain pages. -- Isabella123 5 May 2006
 * I generally assume WP is about as credible as a 20 year old book.--ragesoss 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I treat Wikipedia as generally credible for topic overviews. If I want very specific or comprehensive information in an unfamiliar or subtle topic (like history), I will not rely solely on Wikipedia. --Leapfrog314 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally credible, but only if sources are cited. Otherwise, it should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. --Tom 03:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends. I tend to use my own judgement on an article-by-article basis. If it isn't cited, I can't confirm it, it doesn't jibe with what I know, or it simply doesn't look professional, I tend to be more sceptical. BookishAcolyte 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the studies that show it to be almost as credible as Britannica or Encarta. Sure, there are mistakes sometimes, but they're not too bad. Mimz 17:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fairly credible, but it varies. I wouldn't trust unsourced assertions on certain health topics, for example. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is fairly credible, and even better when its sourced. However, I always apply the common sense rule to it. Copysan 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article looks credible, it probably is – Gurch 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have interest/experience largely in reading/editing articles in various math/physics categories. In these areas I have observed the greatest imaginable range of quality, from detailed and technically capable expositions of important topics, through articles badly damaged by edit wars between cranks and editors with a background in science, through articles which are frankly nothing but soapboxes for highly cranky claims by one cantankerous person, outright hoaxes, unintelligble gibberish, &c.  Moreover, any one article can change in a single edit from one extreme of quality to the other.  Consequently, while I feel that the highest quality articles can be valuable to students, journalists, and others seeking up-to-date reliable information about a given topic in sci/math, extreme caution and constant vigilence is required in reading Wikipedia.  I would go further: the problem of evaluating for reliability, not merely the wikipedia website, not even a particular article, but each line of a particular article is such a complex yet neccessary skill that I believe that intermediate schools around the world should give classwork in reading information resources defensively.  In the future, throughout life people will turn to websites like WP for information on every imaginable topic, and equipped with suitable skills they can avoid falling for the most transparent kinds of misinformation, misemphasis, misdirection, and propaganda entered in the WP by various users (often acting as IP anons) with a hidden agenda.  The sooner that citizens become aware of the endless potential for abuse at Wikipedia (as well as more traditional media) and learn some defensive skills, the better.  I would like to see various improvements in wikicode specifically designed to make it easier to figure out who said/did what/where, specifically in order to help readers assess reliability line by line.---CH 22:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is potentially more credible because it doesn't limit the number of people inputting data. Vandalism is fixed quickly, and it is well-maintained due to the sheer number of editors. -- Chris   Ccool2ax  03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I trust it personally, but not academically. The reason it isn't credible for academic work is not because it's any less accurate, but because it is written by people who aren't respected experts in their field. In other words, I wouldn't use Wikipedia to support my arguments in an essay, but I wouldn't use Britannica or Crapcarta either Cynical 22:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Credibility is just OK on most things. I've found a lot of outright errors and common misconceptions/wive's tales/legends perpetuated as truth.  As far as current events and political issues, the articles are totally different from one day to the next, the result of a combination of biased editors, agenda pushing, soapboxing and blatant vandalism.  That having been said it is getting better every day and there are a lot of professionally written, well sourced articles.--WilliamThweatt 01:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an excellent resource, but, try as I might, I cannot recognize it as particularly credible. It's getting better, though.
 * No, not at all. But its one of the best source to find information, which can not be referenced for research work
 * Not especially credible; certainly not authoritative. That's why I contribute, so some day it will be more credibe.

Do you condone or support the use of wikipedia as an academic source?

 * I do not support using Wikipedia as a primary source, but rather as a starting point for research. This is due to the risk factor of vandals as well as the fact that most information on Wikipedia is a copy or a restatement of an actual primary article(especially true for academic articles).  - Mcli
 * for the most part yes... but as a sole resource no
 * No, not as a source for academics, espically for higher academics. However, I do support Wikipedia when using it for getting general information or when some general reading is required.
 * Yes. (Wikimachine 18:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC))
 * I am against Wikipedia being part of a Works Cited list. However, as just a source, I wholeheartedly support. --Osbus 21:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't support Wikipedia as an academic source. Wikipedia's articles often cite academic sources; if academic sources start citing Wikipedia, we'll have a serious problem. joturn e r 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good as an initial screen, not a final authority. JBEvans 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not as an academic source -- but it's great for getting initial information on a subject. --Gadren 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As a source of ideas and an initial read around the subject area its good, less so as a main source of information. Ollie 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The system of peer review isn't strong enough to ensure accurate information, and the chance that someone might happen across an article that is sneakily vandilized and then cite it in a paper scares me. Still, it's a good starting point for someone who is unfamiliar with the topic. Consequentially 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, only as a general one. --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every item cited in a scholarly paper needs to be independently evaluated by the author. When viewed with maximum skepticism (a good idea, in my view), no source is authoritative. Every source needs to be placed in its context. Wikipedia is an invaluable resource because this context is fully disclosed to the public, if one is willing to take the time to look at the Discussion pages and previous versions of the page. Often, doing so is an education in itself. Bryan 00:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. - BanyanTree 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly support Wikipedia for my personal use, but I realize that other people may choose otherwise Sir Grant the Small 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, since it can be edited, and overviewed by the public, the articles are usually more readable than other sites.
 * Not really. You should cite the original sources for academic purposes. -- Mithent 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it is fine to use as an academic source, although some teachers have problems with it. -- Isabella123 5 May 2006
 * Depends on the context. For students writing papers and doing research, no.  For established scholars who intend to point out sources of further information rather than justify statements, perhaps.--ragesoss 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not the sort of thing you'd put on a Works Cited page. I often start my research by looking at Wikipedia, but I quickly find that I need to turn to more detailed and established sources. --Leapfrog314 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but it serves as a great starting point, especially if you can follow up with the sources an article cited. --Tom 03:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not if I were teaching. BookishAcolyte 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I support it. Maybe that's just because I'm a student myself, but I think it's stupid to overlook new technologies that make research easier. Mimz 17:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The best Wikipedia articles will point to reliable academic sources: use those instead. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It is too easily edited by interested parties or vandals. Copysan 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at any kind of higher academic level. High-school use is fine – Gurch 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If by academic you mean something like a citation in a high school term papaer, then, yes, but only provided that students have taken and passed a wisely designed course on reading information resources defensively. If you mean something like a citation in a scientific paper, I am incredulous that you would even ask.  Published papers are almost always by identifiable authors with some kind of publically known credentials, relevant background, or academic affiliation, which is invaluable in checking that a given paper belongs to a coherent corpus of work by a serious scholar (or, in some cases, was authored by a crank who happens to have earned an advanced degree).  Wikipedia articles are a melange of edits by often anonymous authors, who may or may not have some idea what they are writing about.---CH 22:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because of anonymous authorship and credibility concerns (as I mentioned above), not to mention vandalism, etc.--Marysunshine 00:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? -- Chris   Ccool2ax  03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. I often start out by looking on Wikipedia to get general information, and then if I need to reference things, I go to more solid sources---ones that can't be updated by total strangers, geniuses and morons alike, any given second. --bī-RŌ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's great as a starting place and for general refernce or to help generate more ideas/content, but the articles are subject to way too much change to be reliable as a "source"--WilliamThweatt 01:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is of no interest to me as I am a general reader in my thirties. It seems to be entirely overlooked in the debate that most people are not students. Scranchuse 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine for primary and secondary school students to use for reports and the like, and not bad for background reading on a subject. Citing it in a peer-reviewed journal, or even using it as a source for a trade or popular magazine (nat geographic, discover, scientific american, laser focus world, ieee spectrum, etc) seems like poor practice. But also not our business to police; public school teachers, magazine editors, and academic journals are relatively capable of setting their own standards, which will differ pretty widely.

How does wikipedia ensure the credibility and validity of the information posted?

 * a community collective of knowledge
 * This question really isnt asking for any opinions from users. Wikipedia has a strong base of people who try to ensure the quality and validity of each edit, and many users who are reading articles to see if they are still valid/correct.
 * I know how Wikipedia is strong against Vandalism. (Wikimachine 18:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Recent change patrollers, previos editors who have the article on their watchlist, etc. For vandalism, VandalProof and Tawkerbot2 do a pretty good job. --Osbus 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The large number of editors, the RC patrollers and bots, and the referencing for articles ensure the credibility. joturn e r 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of editors plus the wide diversity of those reviewers. JBEvans 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The sheer number of people keeping an eye on whats going on and picking up bad information. Ollie 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Recent Changes Patrol. Enough said. Davidpk212 12:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As a member of Recent Changes Patrol, I can say its easy to keep a lock on articles that are being vandalized, or that have poor content slipped in. The fact that many editors keep a watch on articles they've contributed to also ensures things stay kosher. Consequentially 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedians working together, especially the vandalism fighters and recent changes patrollers. --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Linus's law - BanyanTree 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Linus's law - I second the motion. Sir Grant the Small 03:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * most major articles seem to be the pets of knowlegable sourses, so they're watched pretty well.
 * Anyone can check the edit History, track the source of edits which seem dodgy and ask the contributor. If the edit was anon and is unsubstantiated by one's own research, it's fair to delete it. NB this method isn't 100%, but it's a big step up on the validity-checking and corrections available for most print sources, where even if the publisher is amenable to a correction without the threat of lawyers or regulatory bodies, the re-print may not be for years – and anyway will not remove the erroneous edition from circulation. JackyR 12:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * RC patrol catches most junk edits, but more subtle things rely on editors reading the page and noticing that something's wrong. It really is a blessing that most vandalism is putting 'OMG JASON SUX' on pages and is performed by IP users; if vandals registered an account and created a user page (even if it's essentially blank), then went around putting plausible misinformation into articles, it might not easily be detected. -- Mithent 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia allows people to edit and requests that they cite their sources which avoids much of the credibility problems. Some people will do anything to mess with it though, and that is why Wikipedia has to have its vandalism staff. (which has been excellent, I have never seen a vandalized page yet.) -- Isabella123 5 May 2006
 * Through the participation of editors who know the material very well and can provide sources.--ragesoss 01:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia provides a list of Recent Changes that can be screened for vandalism, as well as edit histories and user names creating personal accountability for vandalism or inaccurate information. The cleanup and requires-an-expert tags help direct editors' efforts in improving Wikipedia's quality. --Leapfrog314 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply by sheer number of editors and people watching for vandalism. You don't even have to be an expert to recognize vandalism and do a simple revert.  --Tom 03:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, not itself. But, especially in the cases of more frequently edited articles, many people check. BookishAcolyte 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Many eyes make all bugs shallow; 2) Citing reliable sources. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, does it? We hope so, but can never be certain – Gurch 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again filtering my response through restriction to articles in the math/sci categories, even the most modest quality control in WP is entirely contingent upon the existence and dedication of a group of volunteer editors who are highly knowledgeable about the subject at hand, and capable of distinguishing between their own personal views (however strongly held) and a reasonable and fair representation of accepted scientific fact and mainstream informed opinion. Here, WP is fortunate to have WikiProject Mathematics and WikiProject Physics, but I see signs that the continued growth of WP is taxing the effectiveness of these groups. Note that math/sci topics tend to be highly technical, and concerning technical points, in my view the "opinion" of editors who are not highly knowledeable, technically able, and so on, are rarely if ever comparable in value to the "opinion" of editors who possess the requisite background and ability.  I have frequently pointed out that this phenomenon (which I think most Wikipedians will acknowledge) runs directly counter to the generally populist values of WP, which can cause misunderstandings and other problems.  I feel WP policies need adjustment to account for the fact that populism is not appropriate across the board of human endeavor.  You probably wouldn't want to form a cooperative to design (in the engineering sense) that new bridge your community needs, for example.---CH 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thousands of editors, including many who make sure that articles are properly cited.
 * Vandalism is dealt with swiftly, which is good (although occassionally it slips by, but that's only if it's a minor vandalism in a huge article, like the changing of a word). Factual errors are iffy. Not every single article can be checked for every single statement on a regular basis, especially small articles/stubs with very low traffic. Wikipedia is far far faaaaar from perfect, but most pages (especially the popular ones) are well-kept and pretty accurate. --bī-RŌ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the Wikipedia ‘peer review process’ that validates the work posted?

 * I don't think it really does much for credibility. It just helps give feedback on whether an article looks good. I don't exactly like the peer review system right now to begin with. joturn e r 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A start, again, skepticism is the rule. JBEvans 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see an effective implementation. Too few experts, too many novices in the topics that are being looked over. Like the above user, it's best to tackle articles with a skeptical eye. Consequentially 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really.....--NorkNork Questions? fnord? 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My sense it that it validates a general statement that "Most pages viewed will be mostly good", but that doesn't help anyone who needs to know if a particular article is flawed in some non-obvious way. (Note that I was temporarily confused into thinking that you were thinking about Peer review rather than how Wikipedia works in general.) - BanyanTree 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seems to be more about whether the page has good style than content, though there is usually a push for citing sources (which hugely improves credibility). -- Mithent 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea, but needs to be fleshed out a bit to have people check for accuracy as well as style. -- Isabella123 5 May 2006
 * Very little. It catches many outright errors, but on high-profile, controversial topics, it only reinforces widespread misperception in many cases.--ragesoss 01:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As others have said, it checks for gross style errors, but cannot check for esoteric errors. --Tom 03:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Peer review, or peer review on general? WP:FAC is, in my experience, much more effective than Peer review. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a start, but more is needed for greater confidence in the quality of articles – Gurch 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen this used very often in the sci/math categories, no doubt because of the widely appreciated phenomenon which I alluded to in my comments above, and when I have encountered it, peer review has often been unhelpful precisely because the existing peer review process fails to distinguish between readers who possess the technical expertise required to comment knowledgeably on a sci/math article, and those who don't. Sometimes the same problem arises in AfD votes on a sci/math article. ---CH 23:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What authority/experience/credibility/credentials do those who contribute possess in the area of their contributions?

 * In terms of larger articles, some have a strong knowledge in the subject area. Sadly, however, for every one of these people, there are probably ten people who do not have this knowledge, but are still editing.
 * Only as much credibility as the rest of the world gives that editor. joturn e r 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some far more than others. Some have no idea how to verify and cite sources. JBEvans 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Varies wildly, though on the whole i think people who contributed must assume themselves to have authority/experience/credibility/credentials, so the reader must assume the same. Ollie 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Too broad to tell. I would think most people who edit an article and add content have at least a passing interest or familiarity with it, and most aren't going to start writing on something that they knew very little about unless they've got a nice log of references to look at. That said, I figure every article will have at least one or two people who know quite a bit about the topic matter, and a lot more who have at least a minimal amount of knowledge. Consequentially 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Varies hugely.....the more someone knows the more they contribute (normally). --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 20:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea. I can say that the other regular editors in the area in which I consider myself knowledgeable are also either knowledgeable or are using sources, but I don't know if that holds generally. - BanyanTree 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * most of the stuff I've seen seems to come from a reliable source, usually better when their user page is devoted to the subject of the articles they work on.
 * Can only talk from personal experience, but in many areas I've worked on, I've found myself part of a group of people with specialist knowledge. It may be local geography and history (Hoo Peninsula), it may be an academic discipline (WikiProject History of Science). Speaking as a professional book editor, I find the availability of expertise on WP fabulous: you could never afford to assemble this number of "experts" on a commercial project – and how would you find them? That retired lady who worked as an ARP warden, the local historian with intimate knowledge of the cement industry? The hardest thing is to find previously published citations to back them up – tho again people "remember seeing a bit in our local paper about it last year". That said, I also edit areas where all I'm bringing to the table are editing skills and the ability to do a literature survey: exactly as in some areas of commercial publishing. JackyR 12:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes almost none, other times they're experts. People involved with a particular WikiProject are more likely to be knowledgeable, I guess. -- Mithent 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some people know what they are talking about, others do not. That is the risk that is taken when anyone is allowed to edit. -- Isabella123 5 May 2006
 * It varies widely, but the more esoteric the topic, generally, the more credentials and expertise editors tend to have.--ragesoss 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Responsible editors (most users) only edit articles they believe they are knowledgeable about. Good editors (many users) only edit articles they actually are knowledgeable about. The liability of Wikipedia is that everybody is allowed to edit every article. --Leapfrog314 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Varies wildly. Some are simple vandals, others are experts.  Most have only general knowledge. --Tom 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not much, really. It varies. BookishAcolyte 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It varies. For most topics, if you cite reliable sources, then you can get a long way without either expertise or a reputation. By citing others, you're borrowing their knowledge and authority. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the time nobody knows; this may or may not matter. Anyone can fix a typo, but the input of someone with relevant qualifications has clear benefits – Gurch 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again filtering the question by restricting it to articles in the sci/math categories, I have encountered the greatest imaginable range of expertise. Needless to say, this poses huge problems for those trying to maintain popular articles on timely but highly technical topics like gravitational radiation in a state of high quality and reliability.  (That article raises another issue: I know alot about this subject, but haven't had the courage to try to help fix it because so many active editors of that article, who IMO know so much less than I do keep making so many changes, often for the worse, that I despair of being able to maintain the article, although I know I could vastly improve it).  Similarly, it seems that everyone and his brother thinks he is capable of writing knowledgeably about black holes, which I claim is not the case at all.  I know of other knowledgeable editors who have similar reservations about other articles on highly technical topics.  So, in my experience, the presence of active but ignorant editors can inhibit improvements by highly knowledgeable editors.---CH 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do they need someone to tell them that they know what they are talking about? Wikipedia is not a primary source, most remotely disputed info is cited.
 * Hopefully, most people tend to edit articles that they have some knowledge about. I mean, what's the fun in editing Janesville, Wisconsin if I don't know the first damn thing about it? (Other than vandalizing it or correcting a spelling error, I mean.) Wouldn't I rather edit Carpinteria, California, the city I've lived in for the past three years? But maybe I'm thinking too much more logically than the n00bs who edit and don't know what they're talking about... --bī-RŌ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Should people who post on certain subjects (such as science) be required to have some sort of verifiable educational status?
No! No! Never! Not! thats just dumb. That would make Wikipedia like every other encyclopedia. 70.127.34.98 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * not at all ...ever
 * No --Osbus 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not; that comprimises the whole point of Wikipedia. joturn e r 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, probably not. However, having an expert on the field intimately involved in a subject is probably a good idea. JBEvans 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Qualification does not imply accuracy in a specific topic, or intent of the author. Conversely, a well-informed, well-intended author does not neccessarily have qualifications.Ollie 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, otherwise we're back to Nupedia. If the information is wrong, it isn't vandlism - it's trying to build an encyclopaedia. Davidpk212 12:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ewww. That'd keep me out of plenty of articles, thats for sure. Having one or two experts on an article or category is a good way to make sure things stay accurate, but locking people out who are not degree-holding academics or what have you is antithetical to the idea of Wikipedia. Consequentially 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No! That would be a terrible idea, and seriously undermine the freedom and ruin what Wikipedia is all about. Alexander Roche 21:03, 4 May 2006
 * No. That's what Wikipedia is about. --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 20:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, no! Wikipedia is an experiment in public knowledge production, based on the idea that everyone has at least 5 minutes of expertise. Thanks to the Internet and commons-based principles of collaboration, we can pool every person's unique expertise. It's like open source software. A lot of the people who contribute only write 15 lines code -- and it's all they know how to do, but they're really, really good at it. Bryan 00:56, 5 Ma2006 (UTC)
 * No. That would result in a much smaller wiki and I'm not sure the content would be appreciably better. I'm not willing to trade the knowledge that Albatross was written by PhDs for the loss of List of national parks of Uganda. - BanyanTree 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely NOT! Sir Grant the Small 03:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * wouldn't that just make it another science journal?
 * No, because many forms of expertise do not have academic qualifications (History of bus transport in Hong Kong, anyone?). And because, as in print publishing, a knowledgeable contributor may not have corresponding writing skills: it's the collaboration with a copy-editor which makes an article readable. WP has lots of articles where this balance has not yet been met, but give it time. JackyR 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but editors should respect those who do have specific knowledge - which isn't to say to defer to them, but the rumours are that Wikipedia actively dislikes experts. An exaggeration, I'm sure, but experts have complained that their edits get reverted by people who don't know much about the subject material, leading to frustration; we should treat them well, at least. Once again, if everyone cites sources then it should work. -- Mithent 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that would go against the main point of Wikipedia. I do believe that if people make major edits on an article of scholarly nature, that they should list on the talk page their qualifications so that there might be less problems with people believing that what they did was right. -- Isabella123 5 May 2006
 * No; the great thing about WP is the way it breaks down the artificial barriers of authority. When it gets to where a non-expert is not even competent to cite and utilize the work of experts, that means the whole project of Wikipedia has failed.--ragesoss 01:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Though this alleviates some problems, it destroys the entire point of Wikipedia. Users do not need to have any sort of formal credentials in a subject to be good editors, but they should all definitely only edit content in subjects they believe themselves to be knowledgeable in, formally or informally. --Leapfrog314 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The entire point is that Wikipedia, as the Main Page says, "[is a] free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --Tom 03:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. I edit pages I'm only doing research for as I do it, as well as ones I already know alot about. BookishAcolyte 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but there should be moderators who are professionals. Mimz 17:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's Digital Universe, a different niche of encyclopedia editing. Editors should be required to provide reliable sources instead. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Often, only those with an interest but not a formal education in those areas have the time to muck with Wikipedia. To ensure we have the information, we need the interested people to do this. Copysan 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. First, you can't define "certain subjects" clearly enough; secondly, as I said before, anyone can fix obvious errors – Gurch 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If by educational status you mean verifiable expertise, then clearly, to further its mission of providing a free on-line high quality universal encyclopedia, Wikipedia does need to encourage contributions by the most knowledgeable editors and to discourage contributions by ignoramuses.  Verifying expertise is not always easy, and the Wikimedia Foundation probably cannot be expected to "vett" editors.  It can however eliminate anonymous edits, and the WP community can and should consider designing new policies which would enable editors who have proven their expertise/reliablity/good will by past edits at lower levels to ascend to a higher level of editing capabilities.  My idea is that only high level editors would be permitted to edit high level articles, where "high level article" would have some technical definition, roughly corresponding to the intuitive idea that high level articles include mature articles on any subject (say a former featured article), and perhaps also new articles on a highly technical or controversial subject.  This might sound complicated, but I think this kind of thing can be implemented in software, although it is valid question whether this would overtax the servers (almost certainly yes, unless more are added in advance), or overtax the limited pool of Wikimedia developers.  Still, the quality control issue is so important that I think technical/social innovations must be seriously contemplated in the very near future if WP is not to fall on its own sword. ---CH 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Formal education is not a reliable connotation of knowledge in a field. For example, I studied music in university, but that was because I studied history and English independently for several years to the point where university-level courses would have been redundant. Despite no formal education in business, I work[ed] in risk analysis and financial services; should I be considered ignorant in those subjects?--Marysunshine 00:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hell no. -- Chris   Ccool2ax  03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What methods of validating the credibility of the contributors are used, or are there any methods?

 * Well, if an editor isn't credible (hopefully) someone else will fix his/her mistakes. joturn e r 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any method of addressing the credibility of the contributors. Of course a history of foolish posts should suggest a problem. Credibility lies in the contribution itself. JBEvans 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there are any validations as such. The information contributed can be judged and give an indication of the credibility of the author. Ollie 03:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a process for validating credibility? I don't know of any way that people keep track of which contributors tend to add trash and which ones add gold. You just hope the number of eyes scanning the page keeps things in line. Consequentially 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * People will notice and correct errors. --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous contributions are, I suppose, somewhat suspect. When I see an anonymous IP edit on my watchlist, I am more inclined to check out the page to see what's up. Often, I find that somebody has just corrected a typo, and didn't want to bother with logging in. Sometimes, I've made major changes after I'd forgotten to log in! Still, it's a good idea to create a user page and introduce yourself. In the end, we are only as credible as our contributions, and the value of these is for the community to judge. Bryan 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's a "method" but Wikipedia runs on credibility built up through actual editing. Anonymous users are viewed skeptically and don't have certain privileges such as moving pages, editing semiprotected articles, etc. The more credibility a user has with more users, the more people listen to their opinion and ideas, including when they say that another user has no credibility. I don't think that Wikipedia would function without the ability to create accounts and build social capital for them. - BanyanTree 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In theory, WP currently deals with credibility by demanding citations – that is, the editors themselves are not accorded any personal auctoritas. In practice, a registered editor with a good record does acquire social capital, as BanyanTree says. This is not unlike the process for journalists and their publishers/broadcasters, but of course it takes longer for the reader to learn who to trust on WP than to decide to trust a media brand. It also sometimes puts us in the anomalous situation of saying to a user claiming to be Betty Bartik (at ENIAC) or Mongezi Sefika wa Nkomo (at Black People's Convention), can you cite a published source to back this up? This is not a problem suffered by mainstream media, which can quote from interviews with more confidence that they are talking to the right person (tho they too have occasional problems: Bhopal disaster). JackyR 12:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A good edit history does seem to be the only real way to judge credibility; others have discussed it well. -- Mithent 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit history is the main way of seeing if someone is credible, although sometimes people do forget to log in and make major changes that would then not show up on their edit history. -- Isabella123 5 May 2006
 * A combination of social capital (elaborated above) and the prima facie claims a user makes about authority/expertise/training ("I'm a professor of underwater basketweaving at a liberal arts school in the Southwest," etc.). Not a perfect system by any means, but it seems to work well in practice, since on controversial issues citations and evidence trump credentials.--ragesoss 01:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit history. In addition, associating edits with particular users creates a personal accountability that discourages random vandalism. Consequently, users that are not logged in are (properly) viewed as more suspect than those who are. --Leapfrog314 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are basically none, aside from checking users for being vandals. The main thing is time and other people editing the article.  As the saying goes, two heads are better than one. --Tom 03:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can examine their contribution history, and listen to what they themselves, and others say about them. However, we're primarily interested in the credibility of individual edits; and whether or not (yes, you guessed it) they cite reliable sources. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious vandalism is spotted immediately. In time, more subtle contributions are usually reviewed by someone, at some point. Again, more is needed, such as the 'validation' that never quite materialized, to make things more reliable – Gurch 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Whoa-- quick comment on Gurch's statement: it is absolutely not true that obvious vandalism or obvious hoaxes are spotted immediately, although many bad edits are quickly spotted and reverted. But vandalism and hoaxery are by no means the only type of wikicruft which over time can degrade the quality of even a former featured article such as Albert Einstein.  This crucial point has already been discussed at great length elsewhere, so I won't say more.)  Again filtering the question through restriction to math/sci articles: not all editors offer information about themselves on their user pages, but when a registered user gives his name and claims a Ph.D. this can be readily verified.  Having earned an advanced degree is often but not always a hopeful sign, but in the end the only method of evaluating the competence of an editor is by becoming familiar with the quality of his individual edits over time.  Here I believe that technical improvements to the standard layout of history pages, for example, would be invaluable in helping experienced readers quickly tell who contributed what to a given article.  But it seems likely that it will always be the case that only a highly knowledgeable reader will be able to adequately judge the contributions of editors with equal or lesser expertise.   This would appear to be an ineluctable problem faced by journalists, policy makers, voters, and other members of society whenever they require reliable and unbiased but comprehensible information on a technical issue.  However, improvements in Wikipedia policies and Wikimedia code can probably at least make it easier for any user to quickly get some sense of whether a given registered user is at least widely regarded by the community most familiar with his/her edits/actions as being an editor of good will. ---CH 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * None. Most info is cited. Wikipedia is a secondary source; facts are corraled into pages, not stated. Plus, the editor's qualification is the thousands who see the page and agree.
 * If you want to check if a user is credible, you probably have to do some exhaustive research, like looking through several of their edits and seeing if most seem to be valid or not. Also check the user page, as some other users might have accused them of vandalizing or adding wrong material. Though most of the time, the user is probably generally credible, and just made a mistake or two while editing an article. --bī-RŌ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)