A question of trust

It's always a risk relying on Wiki based sources for reliable information.

Wikis have the potential to be fantastic collaborative learning tools, but they need to be overseen by someone who's watching the History button, to ensure any changes to text are made in good faith, and not for malicious purposes.

The fact that anyone can alter the content on web-based Wikis in the public domain means they aren't reliable secondary sources of information, however high they might appear in search engine results.

This week's dodgy edit comes courtesy of the British Conservative Party, who altered the death of a grand master, in order to score a cheap political point. The BBC video below explains all.

Tories admit to Wiki-alteration

news.bbc.co.uk

Why Wikipedia can be an unreliable source

Sometimes students seem to take my advice that Wikipedia entries shouldn't be taken as the main primary source of information with, well, let's say, a pinch of salt.

It is as if my protestations that the nature of a Wiki - a collaborative document which can be altered and adapted by anyone who feels like it - count for little.

So, for those of you who are doubters, refusers, and general ignorers, have a look at this article. It describes how the entries for American senators were repeatedly vandalised and altered, in order to demean them, in the run up to the recent American election.

I will confess to using Wikipedia on many an occasion. A great deal of what it contains is erudite, useful, and very well written. Nonetheless, the rule of caution should always apply to Wikipedia entries. The bottom line is that the veracity of what it contains can't always be verified.

In conclusion then, think of Wikipedia as the starting point for research, not the finale.