Why Wikipedia Sucks
Like many people, I have increasingly got in the habit of using Wikipedia as my first source of online information. An incident has made me question that habit.
Recently I was treated to a delightful performance by the dengue virus. While sick and suspecting it was dengue, I checked out the Wikipedia entry for the disease, which reads, “Dengue is transmitted to humans by the Aedes aegypti (rarely Aedes albopictus) mosquito. This mosquito tends to bite just after dawn and just before sunset.” (my emphasis)
Except this is bullshit. I was bitten sometime between 12noon and 2pm. Further research reveals that the World Health Organization says the virus is borne by “day-time biting” mosquitoes — not just at dawn and dusk.
So being a good soldier I went to the Wikipedia entry and changed the entry to contain the correct information: you can, in fact, get dengue at anytime during the day. I returned the next day and it had been changed back. I changed it again, this time with an explanatory note; again, within hours, it had been changed back.
This incident made it clear to me for the first time just how much of Wikipedia is, in fact, run by doctrinal zealots with a torch to burn in their ivory tower, people less interested in the truth than in staking a claim for their egos.
Verdict: whoever is willing to fight most and spend the most time editing and re-editing Wikipedia will be the person to tell his version of the truth.
Question: does that make it a reliable source of information?
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I been a victim to Wikipedia for over a month. They accused me for using the word “conspiracy theory” as a disruption. Bah. I got blocked indefinitely. I wish Congress would introduce a bill that would remove Wikipedia for good.
Hi! I followed up the point you made and left a message on the reverter’s talk page.
—You might like to check out this blog concerning your repeated reversion of edits:
http://www.shrapnelfromaloosecannon.com/index.php?s=wikipedia
You might also like to check out the World Health Organisation site cited. It does say “day-time biting”.
The response?
—I have to deduce that message was destinated to someone else since I haven’t edited the article in quite a long time. Leaving you a message in case you would like to send it to the proper user. Good wiking,
@!#?
My response:
—Thanks for your message. I’m not sure what you mean by “a long time”, but if you look at the blog in question you’ll notice that it is dated April this year. The history of the article suggests that it is you who made the reversions.
And their response?
—Well, I do call 4 months a long time. But I wouldn’t say ‘repeated’ for ‘twice’. My reverts weren’t trying to comfirm what was written, but reverted some unconfirmed information (e.i. a comparison between mosquitoes’ habits). Perhaps a good clean up of the article should be proposed.
I kind of hit the roof after that:
—I mentioned the blog because I thought you might be interested in what someone is saying about you. Instead of checking it out, you first give me a blank look (”I have to deduce that message was destinated to someone else”) and then propose some nonsensical cleanup of the article.
Perhaps instead of stonewalling you should check out the blog I mentioned, take a look at the WHO source mentioned there, and just possibly consider changing the information at the article. Why does the entire article need a cleanup when a source for correcting factual information is being shoved right under your nose? (end of quote)
I can only say that you seem to have hit on a particularly difficult and obtuse editor. But then, that is the problem with Wikipedia. I think this article expresses it most lucidly:
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000060.html
And other articles by the same person. Links to those articles can be found at the Wikipedia article on Jason Scott Sadofsky!
Well, I got an apologetic message from the editor in question. Hopefully there will be changes in the article.
“My deepest excuses. I sincerelly thought you made a mistake with your first message because I haven’t been editing the Wikipedia in months, and didn’t take the time to carefully read neither your message nor the blog for my second answer. I’ll get into fixing the article. You might consider doing it yourself if a similar situation is to happen again. Thanks for taking the time.”
Like many things, Wikipedia is only all too human!
I agree wholeheartedly. Wikipedia has more become a battlefield where wannabe mini tinpot dictators try to exercise their might over anything they can influence and control. Admin abuse is even worse as the admin system (the ability to delete, lock, ban, etc) is based on staying active enough to apply for admin powers. The system is screwed up as it only rewards those “doctrinal zealots” who spend the most time editing and re-editing with admin status.