I use Wikipedia a fair bit. When wanting information on a topic I haven’t read on before I will often look it up on Wikipedia and use what I find there as a launching board for further research. However I am careful not to simply accept what Wikiedpia says but to actually look into the topic more. I do this because ever so often I will read something on it, and knowing a fair bit about the subject already, I shake my head at how wrong the article is.
For example, in the article on Archangel, Wikipedia says:
A similar opinion is held by certain Protestants, such as Seventh-day Adventists,[11] the Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon[12] and the Presbyterian Commentary author Matthew Henry,[13] who believe that the Archangel Michael is not an angel but is instead , the divine Son of God. In this view “archangel” means “head of the angels” rather than “head angel,” and is a title similar to “Prince or Leader of the host.” (Daniel 8:11)
Spurgeon and Henry did not, as best as I can tell, hold to what is being attributed to them here. If you look at the citation they have for Spurgeon (Morning and Evenings, Morning of October 3rd) what he says is:
He it is whose camp is round about them that fear him; he is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to thee this family offers its morning vows.
Spurgeon is not here saying Micheal is Jesus, but instead saying that Micheal is a type of Christ. Michael kills the dragon , and that points to what Christ has done to death.
The citation that they have for Henry (His commentary on Daniel 12) seems to be similar:
Jesus Christ shall appear his church’s patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, Dan_12:1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, Dan_10:21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deu_32:36. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev_1:5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it? But this is not all: At that time (that is, soon after) Michael shall stand up for the working out of our eternal salvation; the Son of God shall be incarnate, shall be manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Christ stood for the children of our people when he was made sin and a curse for them, stood in their stead as a sacrifice, bore the cure for them, to bear it from them. He stands for them in the intercession he ever lives to make within the veil, stands up for them, and stands their friend. And after the destruction of antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type, Christ shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, shall appear for the complete redemption of all his.
Henry is not as explicit as Spurgeon is, but to attribute to him the simplified view that Wikipedia does is to do him a great disservice.
Another Example: Augustine
An entry that I just came across tonight where Wikipedia really drops the ball is it’s entry on Augustine in it they say:
The Church of England disavowed the state of original sin in the 16th century.[citation needed]
Yet the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church clearly state:
IX. Of Original or Birth Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.
This doesn’t mean that Wikipedia is useless, as I said I myself make use of it, but with anything you want to properly understand you cannot stop with only one source (and a secondary source at that) but you need to use many sources, and go to the primary ones whenever possible. If you don’t do this, you many get close to the truth (As with the archangel example), or you may end up with something completely wrong (As with the Original Sin example). The problem with Wikipedia is that it makes people lazy. They will read it and simply assume that what they are reading is true, they ignore primary resources, and don’t look at what is being cited in Wikipedia (if a citation is given at all).
There’s only one solution:
127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org
If you’re aware of mistakes in Wikipedia articles, why not take the time to fix them, rather than merely blogging about them? I’m sure that countless people researching those subjects would appreciate your expertise - and perhaps you might know of better sources.
If you want any help editing Wikipedia, feel free to ask me and I’ll try to be as helpful as possible. (Indeed, ask any Wikipedians; I’m sure most would be eager to help out in such a way.)
“If you’re aware of mistakes in Wikipedia articles, why not take the time to fix them, rather than merely blogging about them?”
If I may be so presumptuous, I think Bryan’s point is found in the article’s title: “Don’t Make Wikipedia your Only Source”. For those researching something they don’t know a lot about, they are likely to fall into error by relying on something they assume is reliable.
Chris A, yes, I acknowledge that that is his point, and I certainly won’t argue against them. Indeed, I would suggest that one should be careful and not use any resource, particularly tertiary sources, as a sole source.
My point is rather that, should one discover an error in Wikipedia, one is empowered to correct it so that everyone may benefit. In an area where he says that he “[knows] a fair bit about the subject already”, I merely suggest that he can improve it. It may not immediately help promote the media literacy and critical reading skills he endorses, but it is arguably much better than merely leaving the errors for someone else to correct.
Nihiltres,
While I agree with you that it is a good thing to go and correct the errors, we do have to look at the systemic issues as well. The fact is that user-generated editing is an excellent model, but is imperfect, as I am sure you know. At some point we need to be looking for a better system, and that means that wikipedia (for all its greatness) must ultimately be used less frequently if other, more reliable sources present themselves. In that sense, it is quite an asset that Bryan take a moment away from powering-through-with-his-head-down and consider that maybe another source is needed.
In other words, the errors are inherent in wikipedia’s model. If we want a more accurate source, we must expand and stop futily trying to make wikipedia perfect.
I’m one of the people who uses Wikipedia regularly. The thing I like about it is that you often get the big-picture, main-point, 9th grader version of the explanation–and that is exactly what I often want on topics that are not my specialty. Wikipedia is great for knowledge that is a mile wide and an inch deep. It goes without saying that if you want in depth knowledge, go elsewhere.
I also appreciate the flags they put in–at least admitting there are likely issues with completeness or neutrality.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can tell you why I don’t correct errors in Wikipedia: it’s a lot of work for no personal gain. If I spend 20 minutes or 45 minutes reworking a crummy article, or 5 minutes fixing grammar mistakes, or 10 minutes fixing factual errors or errors in logic, I get absolutely nothing out of it. If I were unemployed or a student, maybe I would have time to do that. Maybe the joy of improving Wikipedia would be reward enough. But for now, it’s not.
I have fixed some things in Wikipedia in the past, but I haven’t done it in a long time. If I did start editing Wikipedia, I would probably dedicate my time to deleting useless articles and useless trivia. Few things bug me more than seeing an article bogged down by excessive minutiae. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all knowledge.
As someone who is well educated in certain fields, I have given up on Wikipedia. Too often, there will be some “fan” of a particular subject that will make it impossible for a corrected text to remain. For example, look at the general page for Nietzsche. While it does give a good view of a particular picture of Nietzsche (particularly the strand found in Heidegger and Kaufmann), it is well biased towards the common misconception of Nietzsche’s opposition to morality and Christianity. It largely ignores the interpretation of Nietzsche that runs through Deleuze and many current scholars on Nietzsche (e.g. what gets published in the New Nietzsche journal out of Fordham as well as the International Nietzsche Journal coming from the continent). I’ve once tried to edit the article and expand upon Nietzsche’s morality, citing quite a few sources (as one of my MA papers was on this particular topic). The result? It was ultimately rejected because the “regular” contributors were seen as more trustworthy than someone who is educated in Nietzsche.
I wouldn’t call it an encyclopedia, regardless of how it wishes to be construed. To reference Baudrillard, it is a simulation of an encyclopedia because the “real” thing which it references no longer exists. It has become hyperreal in the sense that it is a commodified product. It’s fine for finding a direction, but I would severely mark down a student if his argument/paper relies on what Wikipedia says.
If I did start editing Wikipedia, I would probably dedicate my time to deleting useless articles and useless trivia. Few things bug me more than seeing an article bogged down by excessive minutiae. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all knowledge.
And few thing bug me more than seeing people delete articles they deem to be ‘useless’. =P
Wikipedia to me isn’t an encyclopedia, mostly because it’s not limited nearly so much by physical space or weight (many-volume encyclopedias were heavy), and so for me, there’s no reason not to include random bits of trivia. For organization’s sake, it might be better to keep the more random bits off on their own pages, rather than cluttering up main article pages; I’ll make that concession. I’d much rather see Wikipedia be a compendium of all knowledge though, rather than merely an online version of what used to exist in hardback.
This may be my packrat tendencies showing up; I have an inherent fear of losing things that may be necessary or even just interesting in the future, whether they be actual physical objects, or bits of information.
I don’t mind trivia if it’s relegated to a trivia section. Trivia is nice. It’s when the trivia ruins the article that it becomes tiresome. I should be able to pull up a Wikipedia article and get a nice quick overview of a topic. What I often get instead is a morass of insignificant details that obscures the big picture. It’s particularly bad on TV shows and movies where some juvenile enthusiast has made it his life’s work to compile every bit of information on the subject and jam it into Wikipedia, whether it improves the article or not.
I still see this as more data organization problem than anything else. It makes more sense in my mind to move all the juvenile enthusiasts’ life’s work into a sub-page than to delete it outright.
*completely derails thread*