See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Wikipedia Scanner | Diary Blog of Elaine Vigneault
2. An Army of Wiki Watchers - beforeyoukillyourcomputer.com - Saving computers one at a time from their owners
3. Tel-Chai Nation
4. Ft. Hard Knox » FHK SitRep 08.15.07: A New Weapon in the Wiki-Wars, WikiScanner
5. Bill's Bites
6. The Usual Suspects « Waste of My Oxygen
7. American Civil Liberties Union Religious Bias « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
8. Ft. Hard Knox » Blog Honor Roll 08/16/07
9. The real story is Wikipedia is just a bad idea « Mark’s Soap Box
10. map of greece
11. billandiris.com » the boston globe… maybe not so good with the math
12. Pajamas Media » Wiki-Whacked by Political Bias

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On August 15th, 2007 at 10:45 am, least said:

   I know there’s much lib-editing crying to be pointed out. What sort of (well reasoned and undoubtedly rational ) conserv-edits have been done and where do they originate from?

   Curious in CA

2. #2
   On August 15th, 2007 at 10:54 am, reine.de.tout said:

   LEAST

3. #3
   On August 15th, 2007 at 10:56 am, reine.de.tout said:

   oops, hit a key that “submitted” in error.
   LEAST - you can do a search if you want to. Michelle gave the link.
   LGF had a couple of posts on this, highlighting some very interesting results. Recommended reading.

4. #4
   On August 15th, 2007 at 11:03 am, Kevin from Ohio in Virginia said:

   So let me get this straight…

   The ACLU will support child molesters and help them to secure their civil liberties, as long as they’re not Catholic? Or are Catholic child molesters OK, just not Catholic child molesters who are high up in Church leadership? Or is it just that they will help any child molester, but then reserve the right to make fun of them by *gasp* making fun of them behind their backs?

   I wonder who most card-carrying members of the ACLU will think is being derided more… the Pope who has been lumped in with child molesters or the child molesters who have been lumped in with the Pope.

   All of these folks from both ends of the political spectrum who have nothing better to do all day than screw with Wikipedia should get a life.

5. #5
   On August 15th, 2007 at 11:17 am, EdDantes said:

   You know the theory that if you put a million monkeys typing at one time they would eventually write something of length that is readable?

   It’s called Wikipedia.

6. #6
   On August 15th, 2007 at 12:00 pm, Kendrick said:

   Thank God the schools figured out right away to not allow this site as a source for research. The ease with which anything can be changed can really dupe people.

7. #7
   On August 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pm, 3Steps said:

   All this really does is prove what I’ve said all along. Wiki is mostly just garbage.

   I won’t let my kids use it. My middle schooler explained to me how the teachers at school use it so it was Ok. I told him how it really works and that if he couldn’t find ‘real’ referances for it then it probably wasn’t true. And that if he’s going to do the homework he might as well do it right.

   but then.. I’m known for being a cynic.

8. #8
   On August 15th, 2007 at 12:07 pm, 3Steps said:

   On August 15th, 2007 at 12:00 pm, Kendrick said:
   Thank God the schools figured out right away to not allow this site as a source for research. The ease with which anything can be changed can really dupe people.

   Maybe not your school system. But it is still used here. Just not by us.

9. #9
   On August 15th, 2007 at 12:10 pm, 3Steps said:

   oh and since I failed to mention it..

   Huge Kudos to Virgil Griffith! Hopefully the fact that these changes are being tracked will make people act alittle more responsibly.

10. #10
    On August 15th, 2007 at 1:00 pm, Regulus said:

    On August 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pm, 3Steps said:

    All this really does is prove what I’ve said all along. Wiki is mostly just garbage.

    No more really needs to be said on the topic. It’s just about reached the point where a new variation of Godwin’s Law needs to be created: anyone citing Wikipedia as a source automatically forfeits the argument.

11. #11
    On August 15th, 2007 at 1:23 pm, Lanzman said:

    So I see this is quickly turning into a bash-Wikipedia meltdown.

    Since all edits are now attibutable (to a degree), that should only *increase* the utility of Wikipedia. Properly done Wikipedia entries will include citations and external links to sources and related materials as well. A study done not too long ago shows Wikipedia to be, on average, roughly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

    So while we can properly decry the shenanigans being perpetrated by both sides of the political spectrum on Wikipedia, to abandon the phenomenal resource that it represents is foolish and short-sighted.

12. #12
    On August 15th, 2007 at 1:48 pm, EdDantes said:

    Lanzman,

    Can you site the source of that study?

13. #13
    On August 15th, 2007 at 1:48 pm, EdDantes said:

    correction: “cite”

14. #14
    On August 15th, 2007 at 2:05 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    Wikipedia can provide valid information, provided it’s not about someone or something controversial. How many edits are malicious, and how many edits were done to correct/remove the maliciousness? I’ve read some Wiki entries, and have linked to them (but not for anything truly important because I know the risks of Wiki, and I try to avoid it if at all possible), but I’ve not ever edited, even when I saw something that didn’t pass the smell test… Hopefully, this will make Wikipedia more trustworthy, but I agree that it shouldn’t be used as a source for research.

15. #15
    On August 15th, 2007 at 3:28 pm, slp said:

    The Wikipedia User Talk feature shows that the New York Times minion has been warned numerous times and threatened with being blocked from editing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:199.181.174.146

16. #16
    On August 15th, 2007 at 3:30 pm, feebiebabe said:

    Yeah, I would like to see how they edited their Palliwood entry. Its been significantly slimmed down since the original post and then another post threatening to remove it entirely by the staff due to “inaccurate” information. Interesting that it gives you the term “Alledged Examples” as one of the headers. Is it an example….no sir, its an “Alleged Example”. Give me a break.

17. #17
    On August 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pm, Lanzman said:

    EdDantes, there’s a good starting place on slashdot for the accuracy question.

18. #18
    On August 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm, Desdenova said:

    I just fixed the Fox News page. Some one had the clever idea of calling it Faux News. As if we had never heard that before. sheeeesh……..

19. #19
    On August 15th, 2007 at 4:15 pm, Desdenova said:

    I guess I did not fix it good enough as it is still a subsidiary of the RNC. Oh, well! I guess Fox can fix themselves.

20. #20
    On August 15th, 2007 at 4:32 pm, otcconan said:

    Why use Wikipedia when Brittanica is online?

21. #21
    On August 15th, 2007 at 4:44 pm, leepro said:

    Where are the lawsuits?

22. #22
    On August 15th, 2007 at 4:54 pm, bour3 said:

    Wikipedia is amazing. It’s been incredibly helpful, even with it’s inherent monkeyshines. Early on I looked up Bill O’Reilly just to see, sure enough, the item was badly marred. Still, it’s a valuable resource with a lot of good work not to be dismissed.

23. #23
    On August 15th, 2007 at 6:11 pm, Rick Moran said:

    You mean Diebold couldn’t just hack in to Wikpedia’s computers and alter the entries that way?

    What kind of a super secret, conspiracy minded, election altering company are they anyway?

24. #24
    On August 15th, 2007 at 7:35 pm, geek49203 said:

    Gosh, Wiki is just what it claims to be — a volunteer effort. If you see something that is wrong or poorly written, you fix it. My fingerprints (twohlford) are all over several articles.

    Wiki is just like someone’s class paper on a subject. Just like looking at another’s class paper, you need to do your own research and NOT cite Wiki for any academic work

    What Wiki does for researchers (and journalists) is give them a shove in the right direction.

25. #25
    On August 16th, 2007 at 4:13 am, pgtips said:

    I like Wikipedia and it has helped me in a lot of the stuff I’m researching on. That said, you should never take anything that’s posted there as the Gospel truth. Instead, the stuff on Wikipedia provides a good starting point for your own research. Follow up the references and then start doing your own reading from there on. Use Wikipedia as a sort of tourist map to the particular subject you’re working on.

    On the other hand, citing wikipedia as a source in any serious academic paper is committing suicide.

26. #26
    On October 17th, 2007 at 7:18 pm, JohnHolliday said:

    Wikipedia is quickly becoming the web version of the old joke:

    Question - How can you tell when the information on Wikipedia is false? Answer - When you read it.