Criticisms of Wikipédia

See also: Wikipédia: Criticisms of Wikipédia

This article summarizes study S, Controverses and Critique S connected to Wikipédia.

Articles and studies on Wikipédia

Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipédia

The scientific magazine Nature published on December 15th, 2005 an article showing the results of a study relating to 50 articles of the scientific discipline resulting from Wikipedia (english language version), and the 50 same ones of the Encyclopædia Britannica having roughly the same length. All these articles were submitted to experts in their fields to reveal there errors, approximations or any other defect. On the 50, only 42 were really treated:

the articles of the Encyclopædia Britannica comprise 123 errors, that is to say a rate of 2,93 errors per article;
Those of Wikipédia comprise 162 errors, that is to say a rate of 3,86 errors per article.

Compared to the encyclopedia of reference in the anglophone world, there is thus nearly 32 percent of errors in more on Wikipédia. The study touched only in scientific articles, therefore less prone to controversy than some concerning the history, the policy or the religion. Moreover, 42 articles can be representative of more than 850.000 articles only counted at the time the english language version of Wikipédia.

But the Encyclopædia Britannica published in March 2006 a refutation of the study. The conclusion of the Encyclopædia Britannica is the following one: “Almost all in this investigation, since the criteria to identify inaccuracies until the discordance between the text of an article and its title, was erroneous and fallacious”.

This charge immediately was the subject of an answer of the scientific magazine which rejects it by affirming that this comparison was right and explains why he refuses to withdraw the article. The examination of the articles of Wikipédia and the articles of Britannica being done under the same conditions, the analyzes would thus have been impartial towards the two encyclopedias.

Wikipédia described by the review For Science

For Science publishes in its number of October 2007 an article of four pages on being entitled Wikipédia: Can one trust in Wikipédia? (Annaïg Mahé).

After a summary on its history and what is Wikipédia (including the roles of the " types" contributors), the article approaches:

the popularity of Wikipédia and its reasons (in particular thanks to Google);
criticisms carried in its opposition (not of validation, anonymity of the contributors);
studies realized on its reliability (Natural in particular, but also " tests-vandalismes");
recommendations of certain institutions on its use;
limits of Wikipédia (very good quality on scientific articles, poverty in the social sciences and on-representation of certain subjects. Moreover, Wikipédia (like the other encyclopedias) perhaps but one starting point in a research and not a finality);
defects of Wikipédia compared to the traditional encyclopedias (rather flat style and sometimes poor analyzes);

The article finishes on Citizendium with a question about the perenniality of this version " validée" of Wikipédia. And the need which the readers have a critical spirit on what they read and the responsibility for the contributors with Wikipédia.

The article was appreciated like very good quality (complete, analyzed well, impartial) and without glaring errors.

The principal criticism formulated against Wikipédia remains the absence of validation of information by recognized authorities, because of anonymity of the contributions.

Controversies related to Wikipédia

Larry Sanger and the respect of the expertise

Larry Sanger was the editor association of the project Nupédia.

He is regarded as the cofounder of Wikipédia, although its precise role is the subject of a controversy with Jimmy Wales. He resigned of his functions within Nupédia and Wikipédia in March 2002.

Because of completed work during creation of this attempt of encyclopedia, the publication of an article of very critical Larry Sanger towards Wikipédia, had a strong repercussion: in this text published in December 2004, “Why Wikipedia must jettison anti-elitism its” (Why Wikipédia must get rid of its anti-elitism), Larry Sanger develops the following objections:

the lack of credibility of Wikipédia, in particular for the librarians, the professors, and the academics because of the absence of a system of validation. This negative perception would cut Wikipédia of an increased participation of the academic world.

the invading presence unpleasant Troll S and people, in bond with the aggressive practices taken in the forums nonmoderate on Usenet. The excessive tolerance towards these asocial behaviors would involve an environment of work considered to be unbearable by qualified people and of good will, which preferred to cease contributing to Wikipédia.

the anti-elitism , or lack of respect for the Expertise.

In bond with the preceding points, the wikipédiens would show of irreverence and impoliteness towards the recognized experts of a field.

In the event of controversy with an unreasonable contradictor, the experts would not have the automatic support of the community. This behavior anti-elitism would explain the absence of collaboration organized with the academic world to check the contents of Wikipédia.

Larry Sanger would recommend, on the contrary, a more strict attitude towards the disturbing elements to attract more experts, a policy of respect of the expertise, and the validation of the articles published by experts.

Larry Sanger would continue to develop these ideas within the framework of the project Citizendium, launched on September 16th, 2006.

This site would be initially a simple mirror of the contents of Wikipédia (“has progressive Fork”, in the form of Wiki with the open and free contents. On the other hand, the editors should answer certain criteria of competence; they could not be anonymous, and their modifications should be approved by experts. *

While presenting this project like competitor and better than Wikipédia, Larry Sanger would stress that Citizendium would not be a Encyclopédie but an experimental workspace.

John Seigenthaler and slandering

John Seigenthaler is a journalist, writer and figure of the American policy.

He was the administrative assistant of Robert Francis Kennedy, of the carriers of sound Cercueil.

Via one of his friends, he would have discovered, in September 2005 that anglophone Wikipédia would present it like " being soupçonné" to be directly implied in the assassinations of the president John Fitzgerald Kennedy and of his Robert brother:

“ John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960 ' S. For has brief time, He was thought to cuts been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations off both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven ”

who can-being translated by:

“ John Seigenthaler Senior was the assistant of the Attorney General Robert Kennedy with the beginning of the year 1960. During a short moment, it was suspected of being directly implied, as well in the assassination of John Kennedy as in that of his Bobby brother. Nothing forever be prouvé ”.

It would also have been written that Seigenthaler would have left in Soviet Union in 1971, and that it would have then returned to the the United States, in 1984.

This defamatory text remained on line from May 26th to October 5th, 2005, before being removed, as its history testifies some.

This particularly long duration (132 days) would have induced a high risk of diffusion of erroneous information. It was thus reproduced by the sites Reference.com and Answers.com.

Brian Drives out, the vandal responsible for this misinformation, would have denounced itself, then he would have resigned

He would have explained to have simply wanted to mystify one of his colleagues, without being aware of the consequences of his act. After having written a letter of excuse, and to be themselves maintained with Seigenthaler on the telephone, this last would have decided not to continue.

Seigenthaler published an article entitled has false Wikipedia “biography” in the newspaper USA Today to describe this mishap.

It written there in particular: “ I amndt interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia has flawed and irresponsible research tool ” (that one can translate by “ I wish to inform many people that Wikipédia is defective research tools and irresponsable ”).

This business would have caused a sharp controversy in different the Média S, which would have been shown very critical on the unreliability of the contained informations in Wikipédia, and on the facility to insert erroneous or malevolent data.

Bertrand Meyer and misinformation

Bertrand Meyer is the creator of the Computer programming language directed object Eiffel, professor with the federal Polytechnic school of Zurich.

Beginning January 2006, it would have been contacted by Christian Kirsch, editor on Internet, which would have taught him that the bibliographic record relating to it in German-speaking Wikipédia, would announce its death on December 24th, 2005.

According to Bertrand Meyer, the translation in English of this text would be the following one: “ According to the latest carryforwards, Bertrand Meyer died one 24.12.2005 in Zurich. One 23.12.2005, exam results were published; links between that publication and his death couldn' T Be confirmed ” ( According to the breaking news, Bertrand Meyer is deceased on December 24th, 2005 in Zurich. December 23rd, 2005, of the results of examinations were published; the relations between this publication and its death cannot be confirmed. )

As soon as they were informed by it, the administrators of Wikipédia would have erased this erroneous information, including the associated history.

But Christian Kirsch publishes an article which makes public this business.

This text draws the attention of the media, with articles in the Spiegel , in the Tages-Anzeiger (one of the principal daily newspapers of Zurich), and in several newspapers and radios Swiss, German and Austrian.

The journalists made a parallel between this business and that of which was victim John Seigenthaler.

However, the damage being appreciably less serious, Bertrand Meyer would have reacted with much humor. It described this mishap in a text entitled: Defense and illustration of Wikipédia .

Suspicion on the influence of Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales, cofounder of Wikipédia, is sometimes presented like a kind of Gourou, around whose the worship of its personality would be built. This phenomenon would go against the principles concerning the enrichment and the regulation of the contents of the encyclopedia, by the collaboration of the contributors, all concepts of individualism being banished. In practice, Jimmy Wales exerts primarily in the public relations, which requires that it is put personally ahead, and this contrasts with the anonymity of the " wikipédiens".

Criticisms with regard to Wikipédia

Goes down for hearing and criticisms increasing

The statute of Wikipédia as a source of reference is a subject of criticisms and controversy. Indeed, the growing audience of Wikipédia led a great number of people to formulate critical opinions on the reliability of the information presented in this encyclopedia.

Among many criticisms addressed to Wikipédia, which can give pretexts to controversies, most notorious are the following ones:

the political project which would be hidden behind Wikipédia, Gauchiste or Ultralibéral according to the interlocutors;
recently or in a recurring way, the educational Projet preached by some other dogmatic interlocutors , who predict a walk towards excellence, insofar as the rules of drafting of the articles are finally those used by the scientific works or of popularization recognized, with the condition, however, that these rules of drafting are clearly transmitted to the Contributeurs and as to the condition as the time invested in control is " rattrapé" by the tools of analysis and diffusion rapids;
a contrario , being given its operating process based on a certain collective regulation, to improve the quality of the articles ; this reflection can lead to the prediction of an inescapable walk towards the mediocrity;
not-membership of the encyclopedias, because a great number of articles is presented in the form of rough compilations of information , without the effort of synthesis which characterizes usually the texts published in this type of works;
contents of Wikipédia closely related to the centers of interest of its writers and contributors, but who presents gaps in the panorama of knowledge ;
the circularity of the information sources, because it is current that articles of Wikipédia are used as sources in other articles; this would be particularly true when the texts would be translated other languages, because they could then refer to their own versions linguistics;
lack of competences recognized with contributors and administrators, which would be widespread
the capacity of Wikipédia to diffuse and to propagate information which would be inaccurate , at least by simple facility of drafting
the strong capacity allotted to the administrators.

Anonymity of the contributors

The Anonymat of the majority of the contributors one of principal criticisms is addressed to the principle of operation of Wikipédia. Thus, Guillaume Lecointre, professor with the national Natural history museum of natural history to Paris, written in connection with Wikipédia: “ the identification of the signatory belongs to the scientific information, since it makes it possible to turn over to the sources for any checking and stepping ”, and “ He is better a bad signed text, rather than an average text not signed. The ultralibéraux ones and the autoproclamés “anarchists” of the free encyclopedias challenge that intellectuals can have as a task to deliver knowledge free. Knowledge for which they have an high degree of expertise. That is called the researchers paid by the State. ”

The apparent lack of responsibility for the authors and bibliographical references compared with other encyclopedias, appears favoured by the anonymity of the majority of the contributors. Following the discovery on Wikipédia of the article relating to it, the journalist Daniel Schneidermann expresses his reaction thus: “ Initially, that made funny. Then, that freezes a little. That freezes, because this text is anonymous. I do not know who wrote that. I do not know who chose, in the thousand public acts which compose my career, this handle of facts and words, rather than another” and “But each one of your sentences, Mister (or Madam) it (it) anonymous biographer, seemingly purely informative, is however a masked leading article. Each one of your choices (length, brevity, or absence of such or such episode) is… a choice, precisely. To tell, it is to choose an account, among thousand possible. ”

Absence of filtering of the editors and committee of validation

The absence of Filtering of the editors according to their competences, and more generally of committee of validation guaranteeing the quality of the articles, is regarded as bearing reached with the reliability of the information presented in Wikipédia, because this information is not subjected to a step of scientific validation, but to a collective regulation. This criticism is summarized by the formula of the writer Pierre Assouline: Wikipédia is the only encyclopedia in the world where no matter who can write anything .

For example, during nearly 10 months, an article on a mysterious named island Porchesia attracted the curiosity of many readers, until the day when an administrator discovered that the island in question had never existed, and removed this text of course. The article is however readable on the site Answers.com .

In a more general way, the opening to all of the contents of Wikipédia present of the risks related to the veracity of these contents which are not systematically checked, of the traditional distinction between producers and consuming information, and to the absence of Médiateur between the two. Thus, the journalist Daniel Schneidermann questions in connection with the articles of Wikipédia: Who thus works in the shade with the drafting of the final versions? Which higher authority will arbitrate? Mysteries. Perhaps in the impossible role of body of reference, the successor of the World will be called Wikipédia. But it is not certain that the democracy gains with the exchange.

The absence of filtering a priori and filtering unguaranteed a posteriori also induces the risk to see Secte S or extremists to use Wikipédia to make Propagande, or many geniuses autoproclamés to disseminate eccentric information. Daniel Schneidermann worries, with the teachers the use of Wikipédia after the reading of the article devoted to the Maréchal Pétain (in its version of the time). The terms employed are the following: The tools of the Wiki type can allow the groupware and support teaching steps of quality. It is not the same for French Wikipédia (sic) which too often serves as the interests éthiquement irreconcilable with the School of the Republic , and The problem, it is that Wikipédia is not unfortunately any more one advisable tool for the teachers. The project, strong sympathetic nerve at the beginning, serves as the interests which cause interrogations. As long as clearness will not be made on the operation of Wikipédia and the household in his articles, we disadvise to the teachers using it with the pupils .

Neutrality from point of view and research of the consensus

The neutrality from point of view ( to describe the debate rather than to take part in it can be regarded as an illusion or a political or cultural prejudice. But its incomplete application is also criticized. Thus, a systemic skew observed in a recurring way is the too free-centered character of the Wikipédia in French.

For the polemical subjects, the principle of Neutralité from point of view results in seeking the consensus of the editors after a reasoned debate, rather than to avoid it by employing arguments of authority. This step is likely to aim at reaching the social than the truth, and to support the Relativisme, even if it means consensus rather to tolerate unfounded speeches on subjects concerned with the Science, or the Prosélytisme for Secte S for example.

An error is to believe that neutrality is a criterion impossible to circumvent or first of Wikipédia, since it is the relevance which is described like such in the pages Wikipédia :

“Another principle founder is that an article must be relevant, and thus that the points of view presented must be relevant. ”

Thus the relevance compared to the neutrality (which can even appear marginal) is first, i.e. the knowledge of the experts, in opposition to the various points of view of the not-experts:

“For example in an article of history, it is the opinion of the historians, with the competence recognized on the subject which must be exposed. Neutrality comes afterwards: when the historians discuss certain points, Wikipédia should not take party for one or the other point. The opinions of associations of victims, the governments, the political parties… will have for example only one completely marginal relevance in this type of article. ”

Random links: