Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Wikipedia contains an abundance of articles which are merely a line or two long, and people simply attach {} instead of finding information to add to the topic. Editors who find stubs are often not experts in the subject but want to learn more. Consequently, if they do actually add any content, it might lack in quality.
A 2006 article for the Canadian Library Association (CLA) [78] discussed the Wikipedia approach, process and outcome in depth, commenting for example that in controversial topics, "what is most remarkable is that the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version of the article that both can more or less live with". The author ...
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 22 December 2024. Controversy surrounding the online encyclopedia Wikipedia This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Criticism of Wikipedia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR ...
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source , it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism , a work in progress , or simply incorrect.
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, the site has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, under which anyone can edit most articles, has led to concerns ...
Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias. [8] [9] A comprehensive study conducted on ten different versions of Wikipedia revealed that disputes among editors predominantly arise on the subject of politics, encompassing politicians, political parties, political movements, and ideologies.
A 2014 trend analysis published in The Economist stated that "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years." [25] The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was described by The Economist as substantially higher than in other (non-English Wikipedias).
Even if criticism appears actually or possibly well founded, it may be expressed in an obnoxious manner, such as publishing essentially the same piece of criticism over and over and over again (e.g., repeating stories about the Seigenthaler biography hoax incident) in many frequent articles in a bid to browbeat the community into doing ...