I have been badly burned in Wikipedia, and am trying to make more of the facts about this online DISinformation source and its inner politics better known.

While Wikipedia has been touted as "fairly accurate" in the hard sciences--perhaps the most easily verifiable information of all--when it comes to anything else--biography, history, philosophy, the social sciences--Wikipedia can be spectacularly INaccurate. And when it's inaccurate, as John Seigenthaler learned to his horror, real people get it in the neck.

Take myth number one: --If there is an error, will it be found and fixed in Wikipedia? Not on your life--not if it is a deliberate falsehood that an “editing ‘gang’” is imposing on an article (see below). And not if a person with a lot of time and an axe to grind keeps on restoring any lie they please.

Then look at this fact: If there is a person you want to get revenge on, just log into Wikipedia and say whatever you wish to say on a "Talk" or Discussion Page. Just pick the smear you think will hurt most and write it in. It will show up in Google searches, your enemy can complain as much as he or she desires, and nothing will be done by Wikipedia--if he or she is not as famous as John Seigenthaler, Sr.

If there is an article in which you might be mentioned maliciously, the same holds true. Perhaps the Wikipedia administration has become more cautious now. I hope so.

I admire John Seigenthaler, Sr., for his intelligent response to this lack of accountability in Wikipedia.

The New York Daily News (December 13, 2005) wrote: “An entry on Russian history might come from a Nobel Prize-winning professor, or it might come from an escapee from a lunatic asylum.” Or, from someone posing as an authority, who is doing a hatchet job.

There are editors in Wikipedia that relish this lack of control and form little "gangs" to impose their smears and misrepresentations on articles by outnumbering other editors--including those with expert training and legitimate points of view.

Wikipedia itself has an article "What's Wrong with Wikipedia?" that says: "Editors have learned that formation into 'gangs' is the most effective way of imposing their view on opposite-minded contributors."

I have been "slashed and burned" by such a gang, and I know whereof I speak. Wikipedia has let them go ahead with their dirty business, their foul language, their false and hurtful assaults on my profession and personal reputation. Real libel--actual malice in legal terms--has been passed off as "editing" by the Wikipedia administrators who are supposed to ride shotgun to keep the encyclopedia safe from vandals as they are called.

I am a great advocate of open source. Open source is needed to spread technology and prevent software monopolies. But "open source knowledge" has not come of age. If ten people without medical knowledge try to do bypass surgery on a patient, or even 500 try it, I pity the patient. If 500 people ignorant of French Literature write a Wikipedia article on it, I pity the article. Or if a "gang" of 5 people motivated by contempt and ill-will "rewrite" an honest article, the result can be a libelous horror. I have seen such a piece of work in progress. If this is done to an infrequently-visited article--says "What's Wrong with Wikipedia"--the misinformation will remain. Or if someone tries to restore its integrity, the "gang" will continually reset the article to their own version.

Many of us have been seriously libeled in Wikipedia. But if you SAY you are being libeled in the Wikipedia Discussion pages, Wikipedia admins regard you as "threating legal action" and can ban you.

And is it true that the new Wikipedia policy of requiring editors to register before starting an article will mean the truth is better protected? No. When users register, they are even more anonymous than before! They are known ONLY by a screen name. The real name is almost always unknown. The IP is unknown too. So Jimmy Wales is, on this point, shall we say, lying?

So, as teachers, librarians, and journalists are learning across the country: If you want accurate information don't trust Wikipedia.

But now, the cavalry, led by John Seigenthaler, Sr., is charging to the rescue.

you mentioned in your intro,"can it be trusted for your company?" Based on just the above comment, my reaction is obviously no. I have to have concrete info, objective, unpolluted, unbiased facts on which to form a conclusion. Just the comments above are enough to tell me -- go elsewhere.

The only thing that makes Wikipedia any less accurate than any other source is the amount of speed that people can update it. Thats all. If you think that half the information out on the Internet, or hell, in Lexis/Nexis is accurate, I've got a bridge to sell you. Information is wrong most of the time and can be manipulated by anyone within that channel you choose to go to. Case in point - the "real" encylopedias publishing fake entries to be able to watermark their content against copyright theft. Or, you know, pretty much every single Presidential campaign ever run.

I can't stand folks who cry and say "Its not right! Don't use it!" You obviously don't understand how to do real research. Use it like any other untrusted source - coabborate the information amongst multiple sources and take the average.

Grow up and welcome to the real world.

I'm staggered by the shallow thinking and ignorance surrounding this topic. The comment is often made, "what use is an encyclopedia with innacurate 'facts'". My answer is, what good is an encyclopedia that does not have an entry on the topic I'm interested in?

So for the users who are so bent on absolute fact, I ask them, where do you go when Brittanica, which has some 120,000* articles, does not have the info you need? e.g. a search in Brittanica for RFIDs, which is certainly not a new topic, is absent, yet there are 5,800 words on Wikipedia with links to hundreds of other articles.

On the topic of Terri Schiavo Brittanica is once again silent. Yet Wikipedia has an overwhelming amount of information...regardless of how you feel on the topic, I'm always on the side of information rather than an absence of.

As to accuracy you can read this article on Nature.com where they studied the topic somewhat scientifically. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Or you can just trust me when I tell you that Wikipedia was found to be almost as accurate as Brittanica...and yet both were flawed.

But what is amazing to me, and what the critics fail to understand, is that Wikipedia is a moving target, a living body of knowledge. The commercial method of aggregating human knowledge has led to Brittanica (which some say peaked with the 1911 volume)--a great compendium of knowledge. However Brittanica's paltry number of articles with it's antiquated and biased information gathering and editing capabilities are no match for the shear power of community based knowledge aggregation. Wikipedia's 2.5 million articles today are interesting...but what is that number in 10 years? Whatever it is, it will dwarf Brittanica's minute slice of human knowledge. Sadly 2005 five is the twilight of Brittanica. However it's the dawn of massive aggregated knowledge available to all the worlds users for free, and that's far better than the proprietary world of the travelling salesman with the thousand dollar set of books.

Information outlets get information wrong, it's a sad commentary but true. Howard Dean's presidential aspirations were undone bye the relentless repeating of one loud yell in video, cut short, out of context. Yet we haven't abandoned TV news as a source of information. It's sad when people are abused by those with power, but it happens constantly with every information source.

Wikipedia is a revolution, a world changing site. it is teaching us the power of massive community content and we will never be the same.

*http://www.britannica.com/premium/

Every criticism brought against wikipedia, which basically waters down to one, unreliability, can be extended to every other source of information. One of the major differences however, is that wikipedia is open about this. Wikipedia warns its users that it's a work in progress and that no article is ever perfect. Sometimes an article can even be extremely far from perfect. But this is for the user to judge, and if he thinks he can contribute or improve, then he can improve it. Wikipedia is not a babysitter.

Other information outlets however create whole campaigns to convince their users, or otherwise create the impression that their info is reliable, it's truth, it's actual fact.

This provides users of those outlets with a certain level of psychological confort, but not necessarily with accurate, reliable information.

It's a question of perception. Wikipedia admits its weaknesses, other information outlets don't admit theirs.

Who is misleading who then?

I think it's people that have lived under a rock for the last 15 years (like Mr Siegenthaler, apparently) that are misleading themselves as to the very nature of information, and of information sources.

And besides, if somebody wrote an article about me as the assassin of JFK, I'd probably have a good laugh, and then go and change it back (only takes a couple of clicks) and explain on the forum why I did it, and that's it. Nobody gets anything in the neck. It's just wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not the supreme court folks. If you believe it is, than that's _your_ problem.

I am a college student and I obviously do an extensive amount of research which has to be accurate and reliable. I and many other students I know have used wikipedia in the past but we all understand that it is not a reliable source in terms of it being quotable, etc. However, I personally and others I know, have found it excellent as a springboard for ideas. It is a place to go when writers block hits or one needs a starting place. From there, you go to the old "tried and true" sources to verify that information.

If you take it for what it is, which is a useful tool, it is helpful and more accurate than a random search on the internet. The whole concept behind Wikipedia makes one understand that it is not a "reliable" source. It is people of knowledge (hopefully) about a particular subject.

In my instance, I wouldn't quote and base a paper on a friend who gave me information just because they know about a topic, but I do go to them to get ideas, get information about other topics, and they are still a resource in that sense.

If we take anything we read as the gospel truth, many are sure to be disillusioned and sadly disappointed.

Wikipedia is making an effort to increase its credibility by asking writers to include links and references to sources. Anyone who knows how to do research knows that you need to check original sources. If you do not, you have no one but yourself to blame for the inaccuracy of your research. Obviously, if there is no reference or link to a source, it shold not be relied upon. Basically, Wikipedia should be used as a starting point for your research, not the whole sum of it.

I have used Wikipedia for research and I have edited content that I found to be inaccurate. That is the beauty of Wikipedia, if you find an error, fix it. Don't be lazy and complain about it. Contribute to the improvement. There is nothing stopping you but you.

Is it the Oxford Dictionary? No. Is it all real? No. Does it give you a different perspective? Yes.

I have used Wikipedia to search for companies that I have been interviewing for. One of the companies that I searched for had all very good information that was available on the site and then it had one line at the end that stated how the company did not pay well and it did not give its employees bonuses. Is that vandalism? Some may argue that it is. Others may not. Regardless, the opinion was true.

Take it for what its worth!

Take a look at today's issue of the journal Nature. A reseach project found Wikipedia to be as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Wikipedia is a great resource but it is often worth reading the discussion related to an article to see the two sides of an argument...as well as a third element.

The first two comments here are good illustrations of the last. In the first we read a complete defamation of Wikipedia from someone who resorts throughout, to highly inflamed language... but little evidence to support his case, other than the fact that the editors of an article disagreed with him. The second visitor claims "I have to have concrete info, objective, unpolluted, unbiased facts on which to form a conclusion."...and then accepts the first opinion, which is clearly anything but!

This is the quality of public debate that the editors at Wikipedia have to deal with. I think they should all be given medals.