I thought wiki was just that stupid encyclopedia site that puts up information of dubious validity!
I cringe when I see people say that. But I don't know if it's because I hold Wikipedia with too much esteem, or because I regard traditional print and online publishing with less regard.
Things to consider:
- Virtually no website undergoes peer review. (Peer review involves another expert checking the document for accuracy.) That includes websites that people usually regard as being more authoritative, such as university websites. Most of the content that is peer reviewed and accessible online require you to pay heafty access fees.
- Very few print publications undergo peer review. If you are looking at a popular book, chances are that a friend or colleague of the author reviewed it. As such they can hardly be considered independent, and may even share the same views on controversial topics. A credible form of peer review is usually adopted by the publishers of academic journals. They usually use a form of peer review called single-blind. That means that the author of the article doesn't know who reviews the article. In theory, this allows the reviewer to be honest. In reality, the reviewer can still see the name and institutional affiliations of the author. This can bias the reviewer because of anything ranging from affiliation, the author's stature, gender, or many other factors.
- Peer reviewers are often experts. Experts usually have considerable training in the field. While this may make them authoritative, there is a flip-side. Only the strongest of personalities will be able to withstand the conventional wisdom of their field, which leads to a sort of intellectual stagnations. (Granted, you're safer listening to the conventional wisdom than you are to a raving nut-bar.) It is also worth noting that people pick up misconceptions during the learning process. That applies as much to experts as it does to outsiders. And yeah, it's a concern. There is a lot of knowledge that experts rarely use, but are expected to comment on. See my comment on textbooks below.
- Relatively few online publications undergo editorial review. While most print publications will under go some form of editorial review, it is worth noting that editors are not fact-checkers. They may catch glaring errors, but since they are rarely experts in the field they will rarely catch more obscure errors. You also have the case of editors who are more concerned with what can sell than what is true.
- The popular press has this weird convention: thou shalt not cite. Or if you do, it is in a bibliography that doesn't connect the source with the content. Or if you're dealing with an asshat author that demands some sort of academic integrity, make it as end notes that can (at best) be associated with a particular page and not with a particular fact.
- At the end of the day, you can always find people who will print books if you pay them to do so.
I have read too many books with too many errors during my life. Some of these errors are can be considered as typographical issues or accidents that can be attributed to the rush of writing or editing or proof reading prior to shoving the things into presses. But some of these errors are more glaring and are more critical. These errors pop up in things like elementary school textbooks where the kids often don't have the means to assess the validity of the content (and quite often their teacher doesn't either). I also find it kinda weird that these errors are not caught while writing or editing the book. Yes, I know that many books are rushed, but we are talking about stuff that the experts should have known when they were 12 years old.
And at the end of the day you always have to fret about the credibility of the authors and publishers. Some people have an agenda that they are trying to push. Maybe they truly believe in it, but their slanted beliefs will result in a slanted book. Other people simply want to make a few bucks and will say what they want in order to do so. After all, it should be no surprise that doom-and-gloom makes more money than balance or happy-happy. (What do you think newspapers are about?)
When I look at everything, I look at the Wikipedia and see an institution that does have things like peer review and editors to back the factual content. And even though you don't have a true single blind or double blind peer review system, it is probably close enough to a double blind review process for practical purposes. A lot of the articles even include citations. And they include something better than all of the above: they maintain a history of edits and discussions relating to the article. This means that you can check the article for a history of vandalism and you can check to see if there is more controversy.
Yeah, the Wikipedia has its own faults. It is possible for people to vandalize pages -- either for kicks, to prove a point, or to promote an agenda. But the Wikipedia does have a self-correction mechanism. Yeah, that self-correction mechanism will only work for more popular articles. But you take that into consideration. If you find an article on an obscure topic that has received a couple of edits, then you know that the article may be a bit more dodgy because it is more difficult for those self-correction mechanisms to kick it.
So at the end of the day, I don't see why people should automatically say that the Wikipedia is automatically a stupid site with information of dubious value just because an online magazine article written by a green reporter in 2005 said so.
Now wait a second. How much peer review did that article receive? None. How much editorial review did it receive? Very little. Did they site their sources? Maybe, but only in a cursory way that makes the source article hard to find. Is it's source biased? In some respects the Wikipedia is their competition. Does the publisher have an alterior motive for publishing the article? Well, negativity sells more than happy-happy.
Why the hell should I treat that article as credible?!
