Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
I hope by now the person created several fake accounts as well and has friends like you and social friend groups to support them, that could easily add to the articles.... same can be done with the goth articles, but simply create new ones.
Source wise, that would be why we want the source, a Live Journal entry about a guy may be valid - it is still only chatter, no different than this forum, it isn't really "the forefront of destroying human knowledge" ... to have it posted on Wiki.
The real knowledge of wiki's has powerful provable sources... not simply opinions.
|
In my experience, every single topic I have real knowledge of, where I have read the associated Wikipedia entry, the Wikipedia entry is not factual. I can think of zero exceptions. Feel free to point out a list of examples of topics on any living person or entity where the information is remotely accurate.
I have no Wikipedia account, so, when my friend asked me to help him more accurately crowd-source, I couldn't help him there. The idea that, if he got a bunch of fake profiles to enter information, he would improve the data quality on there does not inspire confidence in Wikipedia.
I have a job and can't spend the whole day correcting and reverting and re-reverting Wikipedia articles, but I know some less employed individuals who have put a lot of effort into trying to improve the accuracy on Wikipedia and it is apparently difficult.
There is no obvious person to appeal to when someone puts libel on Wikipedia, unless you really feel like starting a court case, and there is no real responsibility for what people say there. Much like dating sites with fake profiles, the brass of Wikipedia, in between spending their phat "donation" paychecks, can claim rogue editor or they can't control what users upload.