If you were to edit the Wikipedia page for, say, Submarine - then your editing will likely remain unless it was in error.

Editing the pages on living people is a different matter.

I made a minor adjustment [which was factual and non-derogitory] to a politician's page and within hours, my editing had been removed and the page returned to the original.

Dear Tamsin, undoubtedly your analysis of Wikipedia is accurate.Neverthelees, unless one is looking for unattributable background information, it is not a safe source for scholars. It may be old-fashioned, but surely we would be better sticking to publications, whether books or journals, or internet sites whose scholarly reputation is impeccable.
Of course, in using the above, we must not suspend critical thinking, anymore then we would in using Wikipedia.
Though it is useful for general knowledge.

Since anybody can edit any entry on Wikipedia then those that have an opinion (or agenda) can also include their beliefs in their edits.

Whenever there is anything of a controversial nature there is sure to be those that want their opinions expressed - factual or not.

While submarine is not a controversial topic try abortion, hamas, Vatican, or any world leader.

You can put your own name in Wikipedia. You can include any lifetime accomplishments or achievements and anything else you might think would be interesting to others. But what are you going to do when somebody edits your entry and says (truthfully) that you did not pay your mobile phone bill in Dec, 2001 or you hit and damaged somebody's parked car and did not leave your name and phone number. I am willing to bet you will want to change things back to the way you originally pictured yourself.

I don't think Wikipedia is the only forum where authors advance an "Agenda". Academic journals are as prone to this technique as any other media. At least Wikipedia leaves all articles open to rebuttals and corrections and has constructed devices to (eventually) let the truth emerge.Some call that democracy.

An example of possible bias is the fact that of the 7 entries on "Oil Shale" only 1 really details the devastating environmental effects. Indeed, if you accidentally type "Shale oil" (the other way around) it seems "Big Oil" have diverted that alternative phrase to go straight to the "Oil Shale extraction procedures" page, which details all the wonderful ways we can extract this filth.

In this way it bypasses the introductory "Oil Shale" page with its damaging paragraph on the environmental effects and link to the full article on the environmental devastation.

I have noted with interest the battles over the peak oil page, and how many times the techno-utopian dreamers have tried to insist that mitigating peak oil will be a breeze — without acknowledging the Hirsch report or Australian Senate inquiry which basically concluded that an imminent peak oil production would require an emergency economy that we normally think of as a "war-time economy"... a war with our addiction to oil.

So, while I love open source projects which I see as a "virtual commons" and agree with the goals of Wikipedia, use with care.

WIKIPEDIA IS CRAP.

i wont give you my name, but type me into it and you will find i am on the BRW Rich list, am one of the most prominent entreprenuers in the country, etc etc.

They got my hometown right and my date of birth, but everything else was concocted by who knows, and it completely over the top.

If average joe like me can have many exaggerations and errors, imagine what other crap there is. And people doctor it to suit themselves.

if it had restrictio

No, Wikipedia isn't "crap" - rather, it's a useful first reference to get the gist of a topic before researching in more authoritative sources. I regard it as slightly less reliable but infinitely more accessible than a traditional encyclopaedia.

That said, Wikipedia has at least two inherent problems,in my opinion:

(a) the collaborative, value-free ethos makes it too easy to manipulate entries according to sectional or personal interests and agendas;

(b) you can bet your life that far too many users treat it as the final word, rather than an as a basic introduction to a topic.

well Realist you are a very able person. You must be one of

Gina Reinhart
Craig Gore
Frank Lowy
John Ilhan
Evan Thorley
or Tina Arena
unless you are writing from the grave as Peter Menegazzo or John Roberts

I do some contract work at one of Australia's most prestigious libraries. The cataloguing staff there are all highly skilled, many are published authors, and some have international reputations (albeit in pretty abstruse fields). These people have access to one of Australia's best reference libraries. And guess what? They use Wikipedia on a daily basis.

Would I rely on Wikipedia for a judgment on a key point of a highly contested argument? Not likely. Would I list it as a source in a bibliography? Oh please....

Do I rely on Wikipedia for background information in areas where I'm not well versed? All the time.

No source is infallible. Wikipedia isn't authoritive, but given the range of information it conveys that's forgivable.

"Would I rely on Wikipedia for a judgment on a key point of a highly contested argument? Not likely. Would I list it as a source in a bibliography? Oh please....

"Do I rely on Wikipedia for background information in areas where I'm not well versed? All the time."

Johnj, you took the words out of my mouth.

As did CJ Morgan: "Wikipedia [is] a useful first reference to get the gist of a topic before researching in more authoritative sources."

And, CJ Morgan, if as you say "users treat it as the final word, rather than an as a basic introduction to a topic", they are ill-advised.

I often use Wikipedia as a quick first introduction to a new topic. It sometimes stimulates ideas for further research and often suggests more authoritiative sources. It's a wonderfully accessible and democratic resource, but I'd never rely on it for my final 'reading' on a topic.

People like Wikipdia and I dont know why.
It is not a fast fact finding machine.
You look up something and then you need to search other places or go to the old hardbook real paper research laneway.
How can that be worthwhile.
If your prestigious library uses wikipedia every day, I would be interested to know for what reasons, maybe too many long smokos?
An interesting article appeared concerning a computer hacker named Virgil Griffith who put a programme onto the net that he dubbed WikiScanner.
It is an application that trolls through the records of Wikipedia and checks on who is makiing changes to which entries. It was called a jolly little game of internet gotcha.
Refer to: Time Magazine 3 September 2007
Author: Lev Grossman

Cardine, as you clearly don't understand what goes on in a library, I will try and explain.

When you are presented with a collection of manuscript material to catalogue (for example) it may contain a vast range of material, including correspondence, images, ephemera, newscuttings, journals, diaries, business records, plans, maps, sound recordings etc etc. You must appraise the collection, organise it, cull (where necessary) and describe it. The end result will be a catalogue record or finding guide, such as http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/guides/lawp/serieslist.htm In the process, many dates and facts have to be checked and corroborated. I have a small collection of reference books near my desk, but only relating to my own particular field of expertise. Sure, I can check the catalogue, catch the lift down to stack, locate the reference book, fill in a slip, bring it back to my desk (after checking it has the info I need) and then use it.

If I can short-cut a trip to stack by using Wikipedia, then I do. To give one small example, suppose I need to know the difference between an aquatint and a mezzotint. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatint and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzotint

The buzzword in Australian workplaces at the moment is "efficiency". That means finding new ways to save time and effort. Wikipedia is a tool that enables me to work efficiently.

Tamsin, you are not comparing like with like.

Wikipedia should be compared with an encylopedia where the articles are written by experts in the area, then edited by professional editors whose reputation depends on making sure that the facts in the entries are correct.

Wikipedia contains thousands and thousands of incorrect facts.

One tiny example was the entry for the classic English crime novel, "Get Carter" the Wikipedia entry for which gave the wrong name of the town where the action took place. I checked it with the book open in front of me.

People look up encyclopedias to check these kinds of facts, but nothing in Wikipedia can be relied on for accuracy.