Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information?
Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information?

At the start of this month, online encyclopedia Wikipedia announced the creation of the millionth article in its English language edition (http://en.wikipedia.org. So far, so impressive.

But remember that Wikipedia, which launched in January 2001, isn't just the trusted Encyclopedia Britannica recycled on the internet. It is created entirely by online volunteers who contribute, update and revise articles in an ongoing collaborative process.

This editorial method is innovative and controversial - praised by some for harnessing the community nature of the internet; condemned by others for allowing false facts to be posted as true.

The website has been forced to admit in the past that some of its entries are "a horrific embarrassment". But such admissions do not detract from its brilliance as a technological tool to find information quickly and for free.

As UK-based Wikipedia editor David Gerard admits, no one claims it is devoid of errors. "Although we aspire to be as good as the Britannica, we are a work in progress," says Gerard. "Wikipedia is not perfect. Don't expect it to be perfect. Treat it like anything else on the web."

That is, treat it with a bit of savvy suspicion and only use it for what it is - an internet-based research tool. If you want to get the hang of something in 60 seconds, Wikipedia is perfect. If you want a quick introduction to some historical, technical or scientific jargon in the minutes before a business meeting, the site should meet your needs. And, unlike other websites, you won't have to contend with advertising or annoying popup notices on the way.

But to make your online search for knowledge as error-free as possible, the website has also recently changed its editing policy: Wikipedia now prevents unregistered users from creating entries and bars newly registered users from editing high-profile material.

President George Bush's entry, for example, counts as very high-profile: he gets five times more edits than the second most-edited article on the website. And considering Wikipedia is, by the latest count, the 12th most popular website, that's a lot of edits.

But the more edits there are, the more errors there are likely to be. As Gerard puts it: "That's too many cooks spoiling the broth." Limiting the edits to users who have a history of editing on the site ensures greater accuracy.

Gerard also recommends navigating the site as a dynamic tool, rather than a static web page. For example, check the history of an article's revisions (click "history" at the top of the page) and see if the edits are as up-to-date as you would like.

Do you have a question about office technology? If so, email us at office.hours@theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/13/careers.theguardian6
www.theguardian.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-34
425749
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:4XZBCYSAWKUFEASWGOOYHTR4UQWUMLDC
<urn:uuid:944076f4-a6c9-40ca-b2b5-67a83631c06f>
2017-08-22T15:17:19Z
151.101.33.111
text/html
sha1:5UGM7KJP7XN7OBRSOKZVHXBNHJMFPPQY
<urn:uuid:f71bfbc8-1fee-4817-bc9f-5bbb0ba6d5da>
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/13/careers.theguardian6
response
<urn:uuid:9294140a-e531-44dc-892a-2669f8c5478e>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-166-25-153.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-34
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf