Why Wikipedia should not be used as a single reference source

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

A hidden risk in some fields is the false consensus.

 

Which is an issue with Wikipedia, whose policy is to favour the consensus of the majority of sources. This means that if new research comes along demonstrating that the previous consensus was incorrect, it can be very hard to get a Wikipedia entry changed to reflect this new knowledge. 

 

In the worst cases this can perpetuate falsehoods about individuals.

[Northmoor]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Which is an issue with Wikipedia, whose policy is to favour the consensus of the majority of sources. This means that if new research comes along demonstrating that the previous consensus was incorrect, it can be very hard to get a Wikipedia entry changed to reflect this new knowledge. 

 

In the worst cases this can perpetuate falsehoods about individuals.

Which is why the often heard phrase, "You can't re-write history" is so completely and utterly wrong.  If it were true, every historian would be out of a job.  You can most certainly re-write history in light of new evidence, even if what you can't do with history is change it.

[spamcan61]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Which is an issue with Wikipedia, whose policy is to favour the consensus of the majority of sources. 

 

.. or the most persistent of editors (as illustrated in this thread).

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, MyRule1 said:

 

As thhis is RMweb my last example is railway related, I can guarantee that at least once a year I will be told by a visitor to our museum that "my father/grandfather drove the Flying Scotsman".

 

This is a classic example.  When someone believes a relative drove the Flying Scotsman, first you have to determine if a) they drove or fired or were a secondman on the train of that name, b) they drove A3s that were like the locomotive FS, or c) they drove/fired etc on routes where A3s were used.  Non-railway people can, for instance, easily become confused with the whole Flying Scot/Royal Scotsman mess, calling locomotives trains, and the difference between a train and a locomotive that share a name.  They tell you that gramps drove FS in good faith, but are unwittingly uncertain of the thing they are describing.

 

Or d) they drove FS.  There was a story on one of the threads here a couple of years ago about a lady at a show who claimed her great-uncle drove 'that engine', a model Mallard, at 126mph.  The thread contributor feigned polite interest and, in a spirit of calling her out on the nonsense, asked the lady would mind leaving her name and address so that he could follow up.  It was a Miss Duddington...

[Jenny Emily]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Which is an issue with Wikipedia, whose policy is to favour the consensus of the majority of sources. This means that if new research comes along demonstrating that the previous consensus was incorrect, it can be very hard to get a Wikipedia entry changed to reflect this new knowledge. 

 

In the worst cases this can perpetuate falsehoods about individuals.

Apparently Terry Pratchett once tried to edit something on the page about himself because it was wrong, only to have it reverted because he ‘didn’t cite a source’
 

 

[Reorte]

On 10/09/2022 at 07:35, Jenny Emily said:

Apparently Terry Pratchett once tried to edit something on the page about himself because it was wrong, only to have it reverted because he ‘didn’t cite a source’

That's fair enough. How's anyone else supposed to know that it was indeed Terry Pratchett, and that he was being honest and accurate? Whilst I'm sure he would be there are plenty of other people out there who certainly wouldn't write accurate information about themselves.