Posted by
Andrews on Friday, November 28, 2008 2:07:36 PM
My wife, after reading
some recent posts, asked "What do you have against Wikipedia?" We had a rather long discussion on
my thoughts, and I learned she was under the mistaken impression there was some sort of editorial control, however, that is not what I wish to discuss here. What I do want to mention is the one point that her question raised which, all on its own, completely invalidates Wikipedia as a useful tool.
So, rather than continue to pick apart Wikipedia, tearing it apart point by point as I deal with each flaw, let me just set out here the single reason I would never use Wikipedia in any circumstance where reliability mattered.
Let us assume Wikipedia works as advertised. All the contributors are well meaning, they all work together to find the truth, they all agree what "truth" means, they do not engage in reversion wars, and it all comes together and produces a fine product. Even if we make all those assumptions, there is still one reason you cannot trust Wikipedia.
The page can be edited by anyone, at any time.
So, even if the theory worked, and Wikipedia did not produce politically motivated pages which were farther mangled by self-promotion and agenda driven edits, as well as simple vandalism, even if the pages were perfect, there is no guarantee that the page you are reading was not defaced by a vandal the moment before you read it. Even if we assume scrupulous editors who correct vandalism within a few minutes, there is no promise you are not viewing a vandalized page.
And that, all alone, makes Wikipedia worthless. Forget all my arguments aboutt he flawed theory, or the even worse practice. The fact that a page is open to endless modification makes it inherently untrustworthy.