h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just wondering if anyone's heard any scare stories, as I often use WP to get a quick overview of subjects.

So so.

Some hate it. Some love it.

<./>Search?searchstring=Wikipedia&searchtype=goosearch</.>

Hate: A3397061

EG, fairly poitive: A918434 (by Gnomon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TRiG Me abroad. Not very active there.

TRiG.

It's as accurate as this guy is trying to make it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels

Gah, posted too early. I find it very useful for things that I would like to know, rather than need to know. The other day I wanted to know what polenta was made from and also how they make plate glass. Easy, I just read the wikipedia equivalent of an edited guide entry. For other issues, for example the middle east situation, changes are either pre-modded, restricted to a set of users or marked as 'contested' while posting both sides of the arguement.

Here's Nature's take on it:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Boiled down, they did a study of Wikipedia versus Britannica on science subjects. 42 entries were tested, 4 major errors each in Wikipedia & Britannica, average 4 minor errors/article in Wikipedia and 3/article in Britannica.

Wikipedia can be especially good for fast moving subjects because it can be updated quickly.

Its probably a lot worse for opinion based subjects, where just being anal about your facts can't really cut it for making an accurate and informative article.

Take *everything* in life with a pinch of salt. Especially when women say 'fine'.

Most vandalism is dealt with very quickly. I have about 1,100 pages on my "watchlist", which I check most days for vandalism, POV etc. I would guess most pages are on at least one regular user's watchlist, so inaccuracies are (usually) removed. Plus there is a "recent changes" and "new pages" function that hundreds of users patrol.

The only time that pages are "pre-modded" or "restricted" to a set of users are when they are semi-protected (only logged-in users can edit) or protected (only admins can edit). This happens when they are the subject of sustained vandalism. They shouldn't be protected for content disputes, which are handled differently.

There are very few vandals as persistant as Willy on Wheels.

I would take A3397061 with a very large pinch of salt, particularly in respect of the funding allegations and "moderators scam". Reading the conversation attached to that GE will tell you who wrote it.

Overall I think Wikipedia has problems, but is still an excellent source of information. I use it as my primary source of information.

I've always thought as Wikipedia as the equivalent of the Encyclopaedia Galactica. It's more serious and, in my opinion, more fact-based, whereas the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate.

WHAT the F%#@#&$%*(^&*()($E#^&K is Wiki-GD-pedia, anyways?