Pirl

Founder of Wikipedia Regrets not Charging For Faulty Information

samantha severyn

Wikipedia founder “regrets” not charging the public to access his site. It is well known that Wikipedia is a public domain, non-profit site, where seemingly anyone with access to the internet can spread their knowledge, or lack thereof, to the rest of the world. This site is not fact checked and bears many false subjective opinions/points of views/and truths pertaining to an array of topics including but not limited to events and people. This site is a good starting point to any research paper or reference for a quick answer to a question; However, not being completely factually Its use is never allowed in the school systems as a reference or citation source, and should never be used as a source of information pertaining to medicine/health in replacement of a doctor. This site is not considered to be a viable source to obtain truthful information in other words. An excerpt from Wikipedia.com itself, “Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute”- Wikipedia

According to the Founder of Wikipedia, “… facts have become subjective. At Wikipedia, we reject that idea. We believe facts matter.”. “Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, so assessments of its reliability usually include examination of how quickly false or misleading information is removed… Several incidents have been publicized in which false information has lasted for a long time in Wikipedia. In May 2005, an anonymous editor started a controversy when he created an article about John Seigenthaler containing several false and defamatory statements. The inaccurate information remained uncorrected for four months. A biographical article in French Wikipedia portrayed a "Léon-Robert de L'Astran" as an 18th-century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigation later determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed. Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute. Because Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia