Editing Wikipedia (section)

=== Accuracy of content ===
{{main|Reliability of Wikipedia}}
{{External media | width = 230px | align = right | audio1 = [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-great-book-of-knowledge-part-1-1.2497560 The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1], ''Ideas with [[Paul Kennedy (host)|Paul Kennedy]]'', [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]], January 15, 2014}}
Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' are written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844 |title = Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up |magazine = Wired |date = December 15, 2005 |access-date = August 8, 2015 |agency = Associated Press}}</ref> However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' by the science journal ''Nature'' found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; ''Britannica'', about three."<ref name="GilesJ2005Internet" /> Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."<ref name="Reagle, pp. 165–166">Reagle, pp. 165–166.</ref> Others raised similar critiques.<ref name="Orlowski2005">{{cite news|last1=Orlowski|first1=Andrew|date=December 16, 2005|title=Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's Excellent for Klingon science, though|work=[[The Register]]|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/|access-date=February 25, 2019}}</ref> The findings by ''Nature'' were disputed by ''Encyclopædia Britannica'',<ref name="corporate.britannica.com" /><ref name="nature.com britannica response 1">{{cite web |url=https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060325124447/https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf |archive-date=25 March 2006 |title = Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response |access-date = July 13, 2010}}</ref> and in response, ''Nature'' gave a rebuttal of the points raised by ''Britannica''.<ref name="nature.com">{{cite web |website = Nature |url=https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html |title = Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica |date = March 30, 2006 |access-date = February 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515025717/https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html|archive-date=May 15, 2017}}</ref> In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the ''Nature'' effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in ''Nature''{{'}}s manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported [[confidence interval]]s), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small [[sample size determination|sample size]], 42 or 4{{nbsp}}× 10<sup>1</sup> articles compared, vs >10<sup>5</sup> and >10<sup>6</sup> set sizes for ''Britannica'' and the English Wikipedia, respectively).<ref>See author acknowledged comments in response to the citation of the ''Nature'' study, at ''PLoS ONE'', 2014, "Citation of fundamentally flawed ''Nature'' quality 'study' ", In response to T. Yasseri et al. (2012) Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia, Published June 20, 2012, {{doi|10.1371/journal.pone.0038869}}, see {{cite web |url=https://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root%3D80078 |title = Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia |access-date = July 22, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160116210930/https://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=80078 |archive-date = January 16, 2016 |df = mdy-all}}, accessed July 21, 2014.</ref>

As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.<ref name="WP general disclaimer 1">{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer |title = Wikipedia:General disclaimer |publisher = English Wikipedia |access-date = April 22, 2008 |date = September 18, 2018}}</ref> Concerns have been raised by ''PC World'' in 2009 regarding the lack of [[accountability]] that results from users' anonymity,<ref name="WikipediaWatch" /> the insertion of false information,<ref name="pcworld WP blunders 1">{{cite web |last = Raphel |first = JR |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html |title = The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders |website = [[PC World]] |access-date = September 2, 2009 |date = August 26, 2009}}</ref> [[vandalism on Wikipedia|vandalism]], and similar problems.

Economist [[Tyler Cowen]] wrote: "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be true after a not so long think I would opt for Wikipedia." He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases, and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal articles as well as relevant information being omitted from news reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on Internet sites and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.<ref name="tnr experts vigilant in correcting WP 1">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080318103017/https://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=82eb5d70-13bd-4086-9ec0-cb0e9e8411b3 |archive-date = March 18, 2008 |title = Cooked Books |first = Tyler |last = Cowen |magazine = The New Republic |date = March 14, 2008 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> [[Amy Bruckman]] has argued that, due to the number of reviewers, "the content of a popular Wikipedia page is actually the most reliable form of information ever created".<ref name="PC 2021">{{cite news |last1=Stuart |first1=S.C. |title=Wikipedia: The Most Reliable Source on the Internet? |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-the-most-reliable-source-on-the-internet |access-date=27 June 2021 |work=[[PCMag]] |date=3 June 2021 |language=en}}</ref>

Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.<ref name="TNY reliability issues 1">{{cite news |first = Stacy |last = Schiff |date = July 31, 2006 |title = Know It All |magazine = [[The New Yorker]] |author-link = Stacy Schiff}}</ref> Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.<ref name="AcademiaAndWikipedia" /> Editors of traditional [[reference work]]s such as the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' have questioned the project's [[utility]] and status as an encyclopedia.<ref name="McHenry_2004" /> Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] has claimed that Wikipedia has largely avoided the problem of "fake news" because the Wikipedia community regularly debates the quality of sources in articles.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606393983/wikipedia-founder-says-internet-users-are-adrift-in-the-fake-news-era|title=Wikipedia Founder Says Internet Users Are Adrift In The 'Fake News' Era|work=NPR.org|access-date=May 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625213220/https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606393983/wikipedia-founder-says-internet-users-are-adrift-in-the-fake-news-era|archive-date=June 25, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

{{External media | width = 210px | align = right | video1 = [https://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881 Inside Wikipedia&nbsp;– Attack of the PR Industry], [[Deutsche Welle]], 7:13 mins<ref name="dw">{{cite web |title = Inside Wikipedia&nbsp;– Attack of the PR Industry |publisher = [[Deutsche Welle]] |date = June 30, 2014 |url = https://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881 |access-date = July 2, 2014 |archive-date = July 1, 2014 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140701152647/http://www.dw.de/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/av-17745881 |url-status = dead }}</ref>}}
Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for [[Internet troll]]s, [[spamming|spammer]]s, and various forms of paid advocacy seen as counterproductive to the maintenance of a neutral and verifiable online encyclopedia.<ref name="Torsten_Kleinz" /><ref name="citizendium WP trolling issues 1">{{cite web |title = Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version) |url=https://www.citizendium.org/essay.html |website = Citizendium |access-date = October 10, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061011230402/https://www.citizendium.org/essay.html |archive-date = October 11, 2006}}</ref>
In response to [[conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia|paid advocacy editing]] and undisclosed editing issues, Wikipedia was reported in an article in ''The Wall Street Journal'', to have strengthened its rules and laws against undisclosed editing.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing |url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/06/16/wikipedia-strengthens-rules-against-undisclosed-editing/ |author = Elder, Jeff |newspaper = [[The Wall Street Journal]] |date = June 16, 2014}}</ref> The article stated that: "Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement. [[Katherine Maher]], the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's chief communications officer, said the changes address a sentiment among volunteer editors that, 'we're not an advertising service; we're an encyclopedia.{{'"}}<ref name="ReferenceA" /><ref name="DeathByWikipedia" /><ref name="cnet politicians and WP 1">{{cite web |url = https://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html |title = Politicians notice Wikipedia |website = CNET |author = Kane, Margaret |date = January 30, 2006 |access-date = January 28, 2007 |archive-date = July 30, 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090730044856/http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6032713-7.html |url-status = dead }}</ref><ref name="msnbc MS cash for WP edits 1">{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/16775981 |title = Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit |work = NBC News |author = Bergstein, Brian |author-link = Brian Bergstein |date = January 23, 2007 |access-date = February 1, 2007}}</ref><ref name="Seeing Corporate Fingerprints" /> These issues, among others, had been parodied since the first decade of Wikipedia, notably by [[Stephen Colbert]] on ''[[The Colbert Report]]''.<ref name="wikiality" />

A Harvard law textbook, ''Legal Research in a Nutshell'' (2011), cites Wikipedia as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in "coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources".<ref name="Nutshell in-depth resources">{{cite book|title=Legal Research in a Nutshell|last=Cohen|first=Morris|author2=Olson, Kent|publisher=Thomson Reuters|year=2010|isbn=978-0314264084|edition=10th|location=St. Paul, MN|pages=[https://archive.org/details/legalre_coh_2010_00_0532/page/32 32–34]|url=https://archive.org/details/legalre_coh_2010_00_0532}}</ref>