Though on the positive side - you can view the history of edits and talk page in Wikipedia.
One Easter, over lunch we checked Wikipedia for the source of Pavlova - an attempt to claim it as Australian was quickly reverted to its alternate source as New Zealand. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavlova_%28food%29&action=history The numerous wiki pages on IT/ICT Governance and the associated Australian and International Standards are also quite active. Marghanita On 17/08/15 12:20, Stephen Loosley wrote: > Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information > sabotage > > When researching acid rain, evolution, and climate change, cast a critical > eye on source material > > Date: August 14, 2015 Source: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150814145711.htm > > Summary: As society turns to Wikipedia for answers, students, educators, and > citizens should understand its limitations when researching scientific topics > that are politically charged. On entries subject to edit-wars, like acid > rain, evolution, and global change, one can obtain -- within seconds -- > diametrically different information on the same topic, say authors of a new > report. > > > FULL STORY > > Wikipedia reigns. It's the world's most popular online encyclopedia, the > sixth most visited website in America, and a research source most U.S. > students rely on. But, according to a paper published today in the journal > PLOS ONE, Wikipedia entries on politically controversial scientific topics > can be unreliable due to information sabotage. > > Co-author Dr. Gene E. Likens is President Emeritus of the Cary Institute of > Ecosystem Studies and a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of > Connecticut, Storrs. Likens co-discovered acid rain in North America, and > counts among his accolades a National Medal of Science, a Tyler Prize, and > elected membership in the National Academy of Sciences. Since 2003, he has > monitored Wikipedia's acid rain entry. > > Likens explains, "In the scientific community, acid rain is not a > controversial topic. Its mechanics have been well understood for decades. > Yet, despite having 'semi-protected' status to prevent anonymous changes, > Wikipedia's acid rain entry receives near-daily edits, some of which result > in egregious errors and a distortion of consensus science." > > In an effort to see how Wikipedia's acid rain entry compared to other > scientific topics, Likens partnered with Dr. Adam M. Wilson, a geographer at > the University of Buffalo. Together, they analyzed Wikipedia edit histories > for three politically controversial scientific topics (acid rain, evolution, > and global warming), and four non-controversial scientific topics (the > standard model in physics, heliocentrism, general relativity, and continental > drift). > > Using nearly a decade of data, Likens and Wilson teased out daily edit rates, > the mean size of edits (words added, deleted, or edited), and the mean number > of page views per day. While the edit rate of the acid rain article was less > than the edit rate of the evolution and global warming articles, it was > significantly higher than the non-controversial topics. Across the board, > politically controversial scientific topics were edited more heavily and > viewed more often. > > "Wikipedia's global warming entry sees 2-3 edits a day, with more than 100 > words altered, while the standard model in physics has around 10 words > changed every few weeks, " Wilson notes. "The high rate of change observed in > politically controversial scientific topics makes it difficult for experts to > monitor their accuracy and contribute time-consuming corrections." > > Likens adds, "As society turns to Wikipedia for answers, students, educators, > and citizens should understand its limitations when researching scientific > topics that are politically charged. On entries subject to edit-wars, like > acid rain, evolution, and global change, one can obtain - within seconds - > diametrically different information on the same topic." > > The author's note that as Wikipedia matures, there is evidence that the > breadth of its scientific content is increasingly based on source material > from established scientific journals. They also note that Wikipedia employs > algorithms to help identify and correct blatantly malicious edits, such as > profanity. But in their view, it remains to be seen how Wikipedia will manage > the dynamic, changing content that typifies politically-charged science > topics. > > To help readers critically evaluate Wikipedia content, Likens and Wilson > suggest identifying entries that are known to have significant controversy or > edit wars. They also recommend quantifying the reputation of individual > editors. In the meantime, users are urged to cast a critical eye on Wikipedia > source material, which is found at the bottom of each entry. > -- > > Cheers people > Stephen Loosley > Member, Victorian > Institute of Teaching > > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > -- Marghanita da Cruz Telephone: 0414-869202 http://www.ramin.com.au _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
