|
|
|
|
|
|
wikipedia editing environment survey results
|
|
|
|
|
We have had a very encouraging response to our survey, as linked from our recent Thunderblog
titled "Wikipedia Woes -
Pending Crisis as Editors Leave in Droves".
This page is dynamic, in that it will be updated on a regular basis as answers
come in from our survey. If you have not yet taken the survey, we encourage you
to do so now,
so that your responses can be included here.
Please note that the numbers on the comments do not correspond to any particular
respondent. That is to say, comment #1 for each question may NOT be supplied by
the same respondent. As comments were optional the numbers are simply a way to
refer back to them if anyone wishes to. They are numbered in accordance with the
order in which they were received, from lowest first.
Below are the results from the first 450 responses:
Question 1
Have you ever edited Wikipedia? "Edits" here means mainspace (article) edits,
not talk page or user page edits.
Question 2
If "No" to question #1, why have you never edited Wikipedia?
Question 3
Do you currently edit Wikipedia?
Question 4
If you used to edit Wikipedia but now do not, list your reason(s) for leaving
Question 5
If it were your decision, would you consider allowing Wikipedia to be used as a primary research resource for students?
Question 6
Are you or have you ever been a teacher or instructor in an educational institution?
Question 7
Please describe your education level/qualifications
Question 8
Please indicate your age bracket
|
|
|
|
|
Permalink to this page.
Email to your friends
|
|
|
|
[ top ]
Question 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected comments in response to Question 1
A complete list of these comments can be viewed by downloading the
Q1 pdf report.
4. Only one of my edits has not been reversed within hours. The one that stuck
was an addition error that I noticed.
7. I am an expert in my field and studied with the best. My ideas were 'alternate',
however, and so I could not get an academic position, despite being published
prestigiously. An Australian friend suggested I contribute to the relevant
Wikipedia article, but when I got there ...
11. In 6 different languages (WP localized versions)
13. My one attempt at an edit was misconstrued and rudely rejected in favor of the
incorrect (and even non-grammatical) original text.
14. Science Apologist and his allies have reversed most of these edits, and in
some cases deleted all historical evidence of them! They accused me of being
a Sockpuppet of someone else.
18. Each edit was deleted despite NUMEROUS references that confirmed the
veracity of my "free" inputs to Wiki.
21. Edits concerning "global warming" are reversed wholesale by "editors" with
specal privileges at Wikipedia. Complaints to Jimmy Wales, to Wikipedia's
lawyers, to the arbitration committee - all are fruitless. Wikipedia is no longer
trustworthy and, in much of Western Europe, will shortly be banned by order
of the European Commission.
23. quit because my edits were removed/replaced or whatever happened to them.
Perceived it to be the stomping grounds for a small group of zealots purporting
their version of reality as truth when it actually does not conform to fact.
24. topic was in "pseudoscience"- A reference to an article in which an arrest and
investigation of proponents of the topic in question was posted. I included
more info that the charges were later dropped and a link to an article in an
official news-source but my work was completely removed.
25 There were many distortions of several subjects. I tried to edit them but some
people kept deleting what I did. Eventually the editors removed some articles
or who portions of articles.
30 I never even use Wikipedia. I do not trust it.
31 Know from several colleagues that edits presenting my personal (& peerreviewed)
research is repeatedly and immediately deleted by someone...
36 They change them back to their original inaccuracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ top ]
Question 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected omments in response to Question 2
A complete list of these comments can be viewed by downloading the
Q2 pdf report.
8. Wikipedia is not a viable source of reference from an academic standpoint. If
academic citation is wanted than one should post research papers to IEEE or
ACM. These databases have stringent submission rules for publication.
Wikipedia articles can be editted by anyone in total anonymity as long as it fits
the point of view of the moderators for those articles that are moderated.
Wikipedia is not used or considered a reliable research reference from an
academic or professional standpoint.
17. I have never viewed wiki as anything but fiction/propaganda. If the service
could be sub-categorized it might be termed flavoured-source and then it
could be bottled. It still wouldn't sell. how many dark clouds reside in these
malignant growths of humanity? ask wiki
20. The whole concept is flawed. I could neve understand how one could trust the
information in such an archive. I would never trust information posted in such
a way; it could not be considered to be authoritative. It is nothing more than a
collaborative ``blog'' or ``forum'', neither of which I appreciate because they
become loaded with uninformed opinion and personal abuse---just what you
say is happening with Wikipedia.
21. I'm already well aware of the corruption in countless institutions. I've actually
stopped going to Wikipedia for the same reasons. I know that the information I
seek in not in-line with the mainstream and so I don't expect any real truth on
Wikipedia.
22. The story of the Wiki bio on my colleague Ivor Catt is similar to Eric Lerner's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt The time wasting comes about through
having to repeatedly correct inaccuate or slanderous edits by others. Similar
stories pertain to the speed of light pages and the relativity pages.
23. Two words: Edit Wars
I've watched articles updated to reflect new data, returned
to "consnsus" go back and fourth many times.
I will not play a role in history revisionism.
25. Wikipedia is useful for non-contentious issues. Where there is an element of
controversy, as say in the matter of climate change, it is neither objective nor
honest. It seems that it is easily highjacked by extremists.
29. Several European colleagues interested in the same subject matter as I have
repeatedly, in several countries, been unable to post truthful, accurate info. If
it goes up at all, it only stays up for a few minutes,hours or days and then is
replaced by some unknown party's edits. This has continued over and over
and over. After dozens of tries my colleagues have just given up.
31 Why waste my time when a clique will change my edits to the "politically
correct" manta instead of the scientifically accurate truth
34 I have read many of the Discussion pages on Wikipedia articles. It is quite
clear that it is a hostile rather than cooperative. All articles on topics that were
the least bit controversial, particularly relating to politics, were clearly very
biased. I could see the same editor names showing up in many articles,
bullying others. I don't have the time or energy to subject myself to this.
38 Several colleagues who HAVE submitted edits regarding my peer-reviewed &
published research have consistently had those edits deleted--apparently
usually within hours. This in spite of the fact that clear references to the
published work were included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ top ]
Question 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected comments in response to Question 3
A complete list of these comments can be viewed by downloading the
Q3 pdf report.
3. Why bother?
6. Barred from correcting misinformation on my own research.
7. Got thrown out/got dismissed/threw myself out (depending on the localized
WP)
9. I have been banned after false accusations of sockpuppetry by SA.
16. I felt it was useless because someone would come along right behind me and
exchange the truth for a lie.
20. Even when placing in my first edit, well documented data, on Robert The
Bruce, one of their editors came in an deleted it, saying I could only put "facts"
on there. Not only was this "non-fact" readily available to any lay person, but
to myself, and other professional genealogists, who must refer to the "original"
original source, they said that I couls not put on there personal opinion. Silly
me, a genealogist, and Robert the Bruce's grand daughter can't even place a
fact. That was it for me. i saw it for what it was then.
21. Don't have the time or desire to fight the Zealots.
29 But increasingly rarely. Disenchanted with those who insist on pursuing a
particular agenda with no regard for truth.
30 Gave up on these arrogant nurds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ top ]
Question 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected comments in response to Question 4
A complete list of these comments can be viewed by downloading the
Q4 pdf report.
1. Not an accurate source of info.
2. not interested; wrong venue for respected authority
4. I am not interested in being banned or blocked, even though I have a duty to
promote my own work. But Wikipedia does not seem a civil place to do my
business, on the basis of the history of the article in question.
5. My experience with cycles related artciles is that they are frequently
butchered, merged and deleted by ignorant people who think that they are
well educated. I wrote a blog article about this almost 3 years ago:
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/02/02/is_wikipedia_broke_anti_cycle
s_behaviour
6. So many articles seem to be becoming so biassed as to make it a less reliable
resource than it used to be, so I feel far less inclined to make the time to edit,
even when I see things that are blatantly wrong.
12. Have seen what happened to several other editors when making relevant and
important contributions to Wikipedia. As I have a very time consuming job and
don't have the time to fight with the sorts of ridiculous, uninformed and
ideologically-driven censorship that is rife on Wikipedia, I would rather not
bother wasting my time.
14. I have begun to lose faith in the credibility of Wikipedia, for many of the
reasons outlined in the preceding article.
19. Wiki is anything BUT free, and it is anything BUT open. It is an agenda-driven
drivel-brained fraud that was sold, albeit successfully, as the opposite. Its
editors are bigots and ignoramouses at-best, outright conspirators in-truth.
They have no credibility and have proven REPEATEDLY that they and their
site cannot be trusted.
20. They couldn't even allow me to put my correct birthdate in without changing it
back!
27 One editor even went so far as to say that I should personally ask his
permission before making even minor edits to the page, whatsoever - clearly
indicating that he considered the page his "personal" territory.
33 When, on my behalf, colleagues have submitted edits (in several different
languages in several different countries) which have included specific
references to my published work, these edits have been removed so fast one
would think the information presented uncovered state secrets. Wikipedia is
clearly a waste of time.
37 It would appear that a select cadre of Wikipedia editors are manipulating the
information there to dumb down, discredit, or otherwise impare points of view,
paradigms, beliefs, knowledge, and/or information that does not match their
own. It is effectivley an information controlling coup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ top ]
Question 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected comments in response to Question 5
A complete list of these comments can be viewed by downloading the
Q5 pdf report.
1. As anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time, the information therein can not be
relied upon to be accurate.
2. Some parts of Wikipedia may be acceptable but too many, especially in
science, are totally biased. Consequently, if used by students, they would gain
an unrepresentative picture of a subject and certainly not be encouraged to
search for the truth.
4. Wikipedia represents the "mainstream" or the most politically correct/most
"democratic" answers to many issues. As such it is not a good source for
development of critical thinking.
14. I would equate it with a supermarket tabloid. It is nothing more than popular
opinion.
21. While useful, the accuracy of the material is unverifiable.
22. Does it matter where the misinformation comes from?
33. I do not let my students, grad or undergrad use wikipedia as a source.
35. Wikipedia is not a good source of reliable information. It is frowned upon as a
research source by many academic institutions and their are rules against
using it, especially at the graduate level.
43. Too many politically distorted edits of truth. Cleverly slanted information in
many places. There is a danger to young undiscerning minds lurking there.
One simple disinformation can hold a developing mind in dark for Life.
46. There are too many instances of editors injecting their personal prejudices into
the information contained. This inexcusable behavior has been observed by
me in a number of different divisions of the site.
60. This would be ridiculous. How can you trust or verify an anonymous source.
61. It is heavily biased to the view of some very bigotted individuals who refuse to
even acknowledge some alternative ideas.
68. In areas where I have some working knowledge, I have found inaccuracies in
Wikipedia articles. I also remember some years ago that there was a problem
with malicious editing of biographies on Wikipedia (I don't remember what
year, but it was late 90's to early 2000's).
69. While it is often useful, I would encourage researchers and readers to vary
their reading outside of just Wikipedia, mainly due to its more and more visible
bias, and adherence to group beliefs on various subjects.
72. Not any more, after reading the current allegations of "editor bias"
80. i have seen too many lies in wikipedia. How can it be trusted as a source
when anyone can edit?
95. Wikipedia is entirely untrustworthy. All universities with which I am in contact
formally bar students from using or citing Wikipedia, on grounds of manifest
and repeated prejudice.
113 It is not a reliable source. It has many very biased and inaccurate articles and
the editors ignore the problems.
142 Its over-run with biased people. it would be a disaster for students to 'learn'
from.
145 As long as individuals or organized groups can edit anonymously and in
violation of clear conflict of interest, wikipedia is sub-par source material for
any project research beyond personal interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ top ]
Question 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected comments in response to Question 6
A complete list of these comments can be viewed by downloading the
Q6 pdf report.
1. 4 weeks
2. English university at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels in both
mathematics and physics.
3. Prof of electrical engineering at Univ of Massachusetts for 39 years.
4. 18 years of experience
5. Very minor experience teaching art.
6. Secondary math/science 2 years
College laboratory assistant instructor (student)
7. 1 year of being an instructor at a liberal arts college
8. top levels of graduate schools in several departments of top rated institutions
9. Although my career was in for-profit technology, I taught some college
courses simultaneously for a few years just out of interest.
10. I was an "official" tutor in math and english in college.
61. 15 years experience teaching undergraduate literacy courses.
62. Professor of Electrical Engineering
63. Professional Genealogist, 25 years.
64. 5 years high school
65. I have taught students in computer design methodologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ top ]
Question 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected comments in response to Question 7
A complete list of these comments can be viewed by downloading the
Q7 pdf report.
1. Secondary School
2. M.Sc Computer Science
B.Sc Chemistry
3. BA Liberal Arts
4. I hold a British doctorate in mathematical physics.
5. Ph.D. in electrical engineering
MS in electrical engineering
BS in electrical engineering
6. Some college, much reading and investigation.
7. masters in mathematics, other subject matter in modern languages.
8. post graduate college
9. Bachelors of Science
10. University level/professional trainer
101. some college
102. Higher School Certificate (UK 1950)
Subjects Physics, Applied Maths, Pure Maths
studied Meteorology, radio and radar technology, aviation etc. (RN and Air
Traffic Control for 30 years
103. PhD in American literature, diploma in Teaching English as a Second
Language, Diploma in Astrology
104. Hgh School and several years of self education.
105. Have taught the Bible for over 35 years.
106. B.A.
Phi Beta Kappa
107. undergrad studying electrical/computer engineering
108. College grad/English major; history minor
109. mechanical engineering
110. I hold an Associate of Arts degree.
201. College equivalent.
202. PhD plus postdoctoral training
203. Bachelor of Arts, Dramaturgy, Theatre Science, Storytelling
204. Philosophy Major
M.D. degree
205. BA, history
206. PhD in planetary science
207. BA in Computer Science with a Mechanical Engineering emphasis
208. High School
209. M.A. Claremont Graduate School '77
210. A.S., B.S., M.B.A.
301 school is for fools Jan 4,
302 Some college Jan 4,
303 BSc level - Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science
304 High school, Navy and 45 years in geophysics industry
305 Master's degree and postgraduate diplomas Jan 4,
306 Physics Bachelor Student Jan 4, 2010 7:43 AM
307 Professional training in ICT and management Jan 4,
308 college
309 MSC
310 MSC Jan 4,
378 16 + 37 years pro experience Jan 9, 2010 2:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ top ]
Question 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question 8 did not invite comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in these survey results are those of the authors of
the material, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Thunderbolts Project.
The linking to material off-site in no way endorses such material and the Thunderbolts
Project has no control of nor takes any responsibility for any content on linked sites.
|
|
|
|
|
