Talk:The Independent questions Wikipedia's accuracy

I tried to keep this as much NPOV as possible... but some of the crap written was unbelievable. In a newspaper which is attacking WP's NPOV when it itself doesn't even adhere to NPOV (glaring errors in articles, presenting facts to back up their view, publishing personal accounts and columns mixed throughout).

Probably the most annoying thing is that they do not compare with Encyclopedia Brittanica (just get quotes from them on how EB is superior). Not forgetting talking about the Muslim wp page, no doubtless as a way of stirring up controversy.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a blatant piece of Independent propaganda, which wouldn't surprise me if funded in part by Encyclopedia Brittanica. Genjix 15:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It really is a terrible article. However, there were some bright spots. Also, they spelled "Numedia" (instead of Nupedia). Also, they state WP is pronounced "wikee/pee/dee/er"... 129.62.113.183 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've re-written this, removing obvious WP-bias, and balanced out the discussion with the notation that Wikipedia articles have been deemed accurate by studies (which The Independent acknowledges.)—Leflyman 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This still has problems, but I can't figure out what it is. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, but just so you all know I've copied the previous table here. Can you see how ridicolous the statements are? Genjix 10:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

how about a paragraph about wikipedia's response
Like this: Wikipedia Responded by tagging most of the aforemetioned articles with so other Wikipedians know that there may be an influx of new users arround that article. Wikipedia user Dbiv (David) commented "The criticisms of Tony Blair all relate to assertions added over that weekend to the leading paragraph which were never previously present in the article and were quickly reverted (by me, once I had got back from a weekend break). I think it's a pity because it gives a completely misleading impression of the article."

Bawolff ☺☻ 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be at least some effort to convey the bias of the article. For example, of the two sentances concerning Wikipedia's founder, one of them is about how a company he was once involved with once sold "pornographic images of women." This information obviously has nothing to do with the issue the article was dealing with and was obviously included only to dispairage Mr. Wales's name and through it Wikipedia. There are numerous such remarks throughout the article. Citing one or two of them couldn't hurt. I'd do it myself but who knows what's considered vandalism these days when you're anonymous. -Anonymous Coward 2012

It strikes me that instead of writing articles in national newspapers these so-called academics could have provided a service to mankind by updating the articles they though were below standard so people reading them would not be lead astray. Instead they chose to ignore the field they have devoted their lives to - chose not to further the public understanding - but rather chose the media spotlight.

It's the academic equivelent of a senior medical doctor going into a hospital, seeing a junior doctor doing something wrong and endangering a patients life. What you HOPE would happen is that the senior would correct the junior and offer advice on how to go about the procedure in future. Instead what has happened is that the senior doctor has gone straight to the papers and sold his story and his profession down the river for his name in lights. -- Joshua Entwistle, UK

Vague, difficult to disprove statement
The present wikinews article looks fine to me. I quite like this:
 * According to historian Antony Beevor, "With Wikipedia's entries, there is a lack of satisfaction, not so much through inaccuracy but there are a lot of vague statements which you cannot really disprove but which you don't think are necessarily helpful."

Sounds like an unintended self-mockery to me - this is a rather vague (by wikipedia standards) statement not very easy to disprove and not particularly helpful... If we wanted to be provocative and help the reader see the self-mockery, we could say something like According to a helpful, disprovable statement by historian Antony Beever... ? ;) Boud 01:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What idiotic quotes
The article is fine, but a few of these "experts" write like children or had POV going in.


 * 1. " It raises an issue because Wikipedia is used by a lot of people as a basic source of information, but this is bland, simplistic and misleading"....what issue? the issue that a "lot of people use it"? bland? does he prefer sensationalist?


 * 2"dead accurate"?


 * 3"I treat Wikipedia with circumspection" why use someone who is already biased?


 * 4 "the few times I have used it, I have been impressed with it."ditto above

Neutralizer 18:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)