Discussion The problem with Wikipedia

[Mero]

This is something I find from time to time in my research.
People contact me with 'facts' they've found online, mostly from Wikipedia
Here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_(sports)
The International Federation of Football History and Statistics, an organization of association football historians, traces the origin of numbers to a 1911 Australian football match in Sydney.
Ah, so they couldn't have worn numbers on those Collingwood and Fitzroy jumpers in 1903, because nobody in the world wore them until 1911.
But here's a photo from the game.
http://australianfootball.com/uploads/default/images/page_content/2012/07/5becd.FitzVColl1903.jpg
That's the SCG, you can tell by the grandstand.
That's Aussie Rules football they're playing, not rugby.
Here's the newspaper article from the day:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/9805380
And nobody else played in Sydney until the late 1970s.

What's worst about this, I found this one myself on one of my favorite time wasting sites, TIL (Today I Learned)

 

[Greater Gattsby]

As you move from year 3 (when you used to copy and paste everything from wikipedia) to upper high school, you realise how rubbish wikipedia can be. I only use wikipedia as a last leg resource, for direct definitions, which is like never.

 

[E92_]

As you move from year 3 (when you used to copy and paste everything from wikipedia) to upper high school, you realise how rubbish wikipedia can be. I only use wikipedia as a last leg resource, for direct definitions, which is like never.

Year 3?!

 

[West_Coast_Eagles]

Its true. But then again im sure if we had a photo of every vfl team from every year there would be a few flaws with your site. Nothing is 100% but you get people who seem to think they can find a flaw

 

[Feraligatr]

Year 3?!

I'm going to hazard a guess that he meant Grade 3

Maybe?

 

[Omegaville]

Ah, so they couldn't have worn numbers on those Collingwood and Fitzroy jumpers in 1903, because nobody in the world wore them until 1911.
But here's a photo from the game.
http://australianfootball.com/uploads/default/images/page_content/2012/07/5becd.FitzVColl1903.jpg
That's the SCG, you can tell by the grandstand.
That's Aussie Rules football they're playing, not rugby.
Here's the newspaper article from the day:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/9805380
And nobody else played in Sydney until the late 1970s.

You mean 1952.

Wikipedia has a simple solution: as you have all the source information, edit it yourself to be accurate.

As you move from year 3 (when you used to copy and paste everything from wikipedia) to upper high school, you realise how rubbish wikipedia can be. I only use wikipedia as a last leg resource, for direct definitions, which is like never.

When I was teaching (2004-06), copy and paste from Google searches, Wikipedia et al was commonplace by Year 8 students. It wasn't enough to get the right answer, just to get *an answer* to get the work done, apparently.

 

[Craegus]

All you school children may doubt wikipedia now, but I can almost guarantee that the following will be true for your first and last year of university (I know cause, I did this exact thing);

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

All you school children may doubt wikipedia now, but I can almost guarantee that the following will be true for your first and last year of university (I know cause, I did this exact thing);

Hahaha...so true craegus.

Say what you like about Wikipedia, but I use it dozens of times every day. If you go in understanding that any Joe Blow can update an article and that the odds of Wikipedia being correct and Mero being incorrect are about 100-1, you'll be fine using it.

 

[Omegaville]

The lesson is:
Wikipedia is one information source.
Research comes from using MULTIPLE information sources and being able to distil the varying information into something cohesive.

 

[Mr Eagle]

The lesson is:
Wikipedia must be banned from the universe.

 

[Heardy_101]

I remember a year or so back, someone edited North Melbourne's page so it said, in random places: "norh melborne also suck and the afl are loking at remving them from viktoria and sending them to the gold cost" and "north melbourne have been crap for the last few yers now".

 

[wizardwaffle]

The problem is you are taking as fact what has been typed in to Wikipedia by someone who has the time to type it in, and knows how to. Information will be presented on Wikipedia until someone says that not right and changes it to what they see as correct. Information about the North Melbourne Football Club would be seen at least once a day, so errors will be detected, but the number of times people look up the International Federation of Football History and Statistics would rarely ever, and usually they wouldn't know that the information presented is incorrect.

When using Wikipedia look for its references. Are those references good or has the information been typed in by someone who thinks that they are correct.

 

[Slattery_20]

It seems to come up a lot, where people assume their sport is *the* definition for most historic /popular /oldest because of spurious reasons.

 

[The Swert]

Why not be proactive and edit the wikipedia article? Or at least raise the issue on the talk page with your evidence.

 

[Mero]

Why not be proactive and edit the wikipedia article? Or at least raise the issue on the talk page with your evidence.

I thought you had to be in some sort of Wikipedia club for that.
You mean anyone can change anything, with impunity?
Seems to make my case stronger.

PS I emailed the good people at International Federation of Football History and Statistics and they were most interested and are going to change their information once they have a meeting to discuss it. Sounded very official.

 

[hitthepost]

Mero you just need to sign up to Wikipedia. I did for a while, but I'm not any more. Then you can edit articles (unless they've been locked due to substantial abuse of that article) and so long as you cite your sources etc you should be fine.

 

[Tazwegian]

I remember a year or so back, someone edited North Melbourne's page so it said, in random places: "norh melborne also suck and the afl are loking at remving them from viktoria and sending them to the gold cost" and "north melbourne have been crap for the last few yers now".

I don't see the problem? Pretty accurate statement.

 

[Mero]

Mero you just need to sign up to Wikipedia. I did for a while, but I'm not any more. Then you can edit articles (unless they've been locked due to substantial abuse of that article) and so long as you cite your sources etc you should be fine.

Can one cite their own website as proof?

 

[hitthepost]

Can one cite their own website as proof?

I don't know haha
If you've got the proof, why not?

 

[wizardwaffle]

Can one cite their own website as proof?

You can if you want to. But how much do you trust an article in Wikipedia is by Mr X is the reference is Mr X.com.

 

[Mero]

You can if you want to. But how much do you trust an article in Wikipedia is by Mr X is the reference is Mr X.com.

Well that's what I was thinking.

 

[Mr Eagle]

Well that's what I was thinking.

Best approach: discuss your edits on the Talk page ahead of time.

 

[Engimal]

As you move from year 3 (when you used to copy and paste everything from wikipedia) to upper high school, you realise how rubbish wikipedia can be. I only use wikipedia as a last leg resource, for direct definitions, which is like never.

Wikipedia is great. Just never get your info STRAIGHT from there. Click the references. Always.

 

[alzy11]

I don't see the problem? Pretty accurate statement.

Says the GWS supporter

 

[PenrithWelsh]

Says the GWS supporter

Exactly what I was thinking