Though I'm as likely as the next person to do a quick check on Wikipedia (usually to check a person's bio or maybe confirm a bit of historical background on something), I'm also as likely to tell my students not to rely on Wikipedia as a reliable resource and certainly not to use it as a source for research essays. Call me a Wikiskeptic, but I think the best approach when dealing with Wikipedia is to trust but verify (which is a loose translation of a Russian proverb, doveryai, no proveryai, at least, so says Wikipedia...!)
Here's a good illustration of why a healthy dose of wikiskepticism (am I the first to coin this word?) is a good idea. The other day I looked up "Weekly Republican Address" for some reason. Here's the first line:
The Weekly Republican Address is an anarchist effort by the Republican party to divide the country and combat the initiatives of the 44th President of the United States, President Barak Obama.(Ha, that's funny, I just noticed that the first name of the president is misspelled.)
Here's the link. On the off chance it's changed by the time you look at it, I'll include the screen shot (taken April 30, 2012) and, in case you can't read the words in the screen shot (I can't), the complete entry:
 |
| Screen shot captured April 30, 2012 |
The Weekly Republican Address is an anarchist effort by the Republican party to divide the country and combat the initiatives of the 44th President of the United States, President Barak Obama. Created in 2009, the Weekly Republican Address is the first anarchist tactical approach used against a sitting president, since the 16th President of the United States. The Weekly Republican Address is delivered by a different member of the Republican party each week, in a response to the official Weekly Address of the 44th President of the United States. Hence, the Weekly Address of the President was started by the 32cd President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, more than 70 years ago.Obviously someone's having a little fun here, though he (or she) is a terrible writer.
I tried to follow the editing history of changes made to this entry but I don't understand the process. Any tech person out there care to explain?
I rated the page at the bottom ("Lacks reputable sources," "Heavily biased," "Missing Most Information," "Incomprehensible").
I thought about reporting the page, but apparently, being run and edited by volunteers, that's easier said than done. The Contact page says "Wikipedia has no editorial board. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff." And the "Report a Problem" page addresses dispute resolutions, but it looks pretty complicated.
I also thought about editing the page myself. But that's not something I want to do right now.
Bottom line? Common sense tells me that Wikipedia users should abide by the business principle caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware").
And yes, I double-checked the Latin spelling on Wikipedia.
