Monday, August 15, 2005

Abusing Wikipedia

Wikipedia is vulnerable. Anyone can change it the way (s)he desires. A case has been reported of an atricle on Wikipedia about a fictional character potraying as a real person. The fictional character Kane belongs to an online alternate reality game from BBC.

There has been lot of debate over the reliability of Wikipedia as a trusted source of knowledge. But the point is, such a system is self cleansing. The fact that the truth came out so quickly is good indicator of the effectiveness of the design.

Now, some argue that "The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven". Apparently it is. But the past has shown, just as this time, errors don't go unnoticed on Wikipedia. If someone is interested in the reliable information, just combine the discussion page with article and one will get all the different perspectives on issue of the quest.

Someone will always be able to abuse any system, or may be Wikipedia is vulnerable to abuse, but it is made by design to correct itself over the time, and that is Wikipedia's greatest strength.


At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Google, Wikipedia Become Tools of Gangs of Anonymous Stalkers in Usenet

I was so appalled by the abuse of Google and Wikipedia by gangs of anonymous stalkers based in unmoderated Usenet news groups, that I composed a series of documents I think you’ll find interesting.

Abuse of Wikipedia

Google’s Defamation Superhighway

Abuse of

Meet the Stalkers of Sci.Psychology.Psychotherapy

Main Cyberstalking Report

At 4:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The owners of Wikipedia behave in a naive and arrogant manner. A year ago I posted my views about an utterly factually wrong entry on a specialist subject in which I am an active participant. I declined to "edit" the existing entry, saying that the Wikipedia ideal was flawed: any entry is only as good as the last pair of hands to edit it, which guarantees nothing. In any case I'd have had to completely rewrite the item in question, which betrayed its authors to be secondary sources.

Weeks later my comment was removed to the bowels of Wikipedia's history, as was a second critical footnote I submitted earlier this year. The original incorrect entry stands to this day.

"Legal Eagle"

At 12:39 AM, Blogger Brajesh said...

I have no reason to disagree with your assertion - any entry is only as good as the last pair of hands to edit it. And probably you are right about not editing the entry since you don't believe in the concept of wikipedia. So tell me, what makes an authentic source of information. Agreed, wikipedia is prone to have factually incorrect information more than any other source since anyone can edit it. But it would correct itself in with lesser effort than any other source. Its a trade off.


Post a Comment

<< Home