[Chickencha]

This kind of stuff happens all the time and it's really disappointing. Wikipedia is a good starting place for learning about things, but if you're publishing something and citing Wikipedia then something is seriously wrong.

If you're using Wikipedia for anything more than casual learning, then you'd better make sure that you can find another source to confirm what you find (and make sure that that source doesn't cite Wikipedia).

[jameskpolk]

I'd take your statement one step further: if you are citing anything that isn't a primary source, you're very likely "doing it wrong".

Sources like Wikipedia or other encyclopedias are good for beginning to understand the topic, and finding relevant primary sources.

[chris11]

I completely agree with you.

That is kind of why it always annoys me when somebody intentionally puts an error into Wikipedia. The message that usually comes out in the media is that Wikipedia isn't that should be used for finding primary sources, but that Wikipedia can be blatantly wrong and can't be trusted.

It seems like the message most educators get and send is that Wikipedia has little academic value, when it really is great as a starting point.

[anigbrowl]

A valid point. I don't mind hoaxes too much though, because a) they incrementally improve editing standards on WP and b) I'm starting to think that the form of someone's reaction to WP tells you a lot about their thinking process, or lack thereof.

[chris11]

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with the editing standards on Wikipedia. The article mentions that the changes where almost immediately reversed several times.

Right now encyclopedia companies seem to be operating on accuracy through obscurity, believing that if they control who edits the textbook, the results would have an acceptable level of accuracy. And that method can get good results. But that also means open encyclopedias will be viewed as more inaccurate for awhile, which means the errors are more public. I'm sure that everyone has had teachers complain about the accuracy of some textbooks, but those errors don't usually make news stories.

So I see hoax edits as somewhat comparable to a programmer intentionally putting a back door or easily exploitable code into open source software. The attempt could bring up problems with the code submittal process, and I'm sure that most well-run projects would quickly fix the error. But if the media got a hold of the story, it would not help convince technical managers and CIOs to take open source software seriously.

[ensignavenger]

I agree that primary sources should be used to validate facts, but I do reference Wikipedia when the editors have expressed a thought very well and I quote or paraphrase it in a paper- just to give credit where it is due! I find myself quoting Wikipedia a lot in such cases- but I always validate any facts by looking at the sources.

[michael_dorfman]

Absolutely. I get really skeeved out when I find books referencing Wikipedia as a source-- which translates in my head to "some random guy on the Internet said...."