Featured Advertisers
Tue, Nov. 24  -   -  Mobile  -  RSS
  

Make a post about this story on FredTalk. Get a printer-friendly version of this page. E-mail this story to a friend.

MyLine:Column

Comment: Wikipedia experiments support argument that it's closely monitored

Date published: 3/4/2008

Want your say? Students in grades eight to 12 are invited to submit guest columns to MyLine. For guidelines, visit fredericksburg.com/it and click on "Contact Us."

BY HIGH SCHOOL, we've all been told by most, if not all, of our teachers that Wikipedia is "not a reliable source because anyone can edit it." Just like that, the vast wealth of free knowledge on the Internet is deemed unusable for anything and nearly everything curricular.

I've always fought these claims with the argument that monitoring the edits on Wikipedia is something that the site's staff members get paid to do 24-7. Recently, I decided to clear up once and for all whether "the free encyclopedia" was to be trusted or not.

My first test was to create a random page about myself. It read "Gordon Phillips is the best thing ever, hands down." I added the page to my account's "watch list," which notifies the user of any change made to the page. Within moments--I'd say less than a minute later--the page was deleted under the reason "G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible." The staff obviously wastes no time in removing any article that does not fully cite sources or that is completely irrelevant.

For my second test, I thought I'd change a fairly well-used, popular page. After adding it to my watch page, I edited the "Early Life" section of the Hillary Rodham Clinton page to include "Hillary was always the fastest kid on the playground and was never picked last when it came to Red Rover." This edit lasted an impressive 31 seconds by the Wikipedia clock until it was completely removed by the Wikipedia administration. The more popular pages seem to be under close watch for any kind of editing.


1  2  Next Page  


Follow us on
twitter
fredericksburg.com Facebook page


Date published: 3/4/2008


Most recent reader comments:

1 comment has been posted. (Sorted in reverse order, with most recent post at the top.)

Display comments on this page. | Sort:

PLEASE READ: These reader comments are not moderated. Each user is solely responsible for any message (s)he posts here. The Free Lance-Star does not endorse the views expressed within these comments. All users who post to this Web site must agree to the terms of the FredTalk User Agreement. We rely on our readers to police themselves, and report any content that violates our User Agreement. In accordance with our User Agreement, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms. Any reader can report inappropriate content by clicking the "Report this post to admins" link at the bottom of each comment. You need not be registered to report a post.

Unscientific method (posted by BillyBob , Mar. 4, 2008 2:31 pm)   
Your method isn't very scientific. If you created an account, made 100 normal edits and then tried the last thing you did on edit 101 but made it less fictitious, it would have stayed. People have created 100's of articles with rubbish on them in Wikipedia and they've added thousands of bits of rubbish information. Creating a new article and editing a very famous person is no good as most new articles are vetted and people are on the lookout for changes to Hilary's page.

What do you think?
Enter your FredTalk username and password to post a comment on this story. If you are registered on FredTalk or another part of this site, use that login here. Otherwise, you can just REGISTER here... .

Username: Password:

Post title:


Please keep it brief: (512-character limit)
Please make sure CAPS LOCK is off. Posts in ALL CAPS will be deleted.)


By checking this box, you agree to the terms of the FredTalk User agreement.