Wikipedia - The contributor with an agenda often prevails

[Bubzer]

Posted because some are pointing to a number of "facts" listed there to bolster their position (specifically political endorsements). While I love Wikipedia, most often, those with an agenda control what is presented on the site. A quick glance through the edit history section shows a virtual war going on between various editors. Some of them have a fairly clear political agenda... others are questionable... all of them keep changing information based on their own narrative.

Here are a few of the non-offensive variety:

mere attendance at a fundraiser is not an endorsement
-these simply aren't endorsements
-How many of Clinton's 'endorsements' are because someone says something nice of her, or that they just like her, or are her friend? Consistency?
-saying something nice about someone is not an endorsement
-Removed Colleen Hanabusa from Hillary supporters. As a public figure, Hanabusa's endorsement of Hillary should have more coverage than appearing in one list put together before Hillary even ran. She clearly endorsed her for 2008 but not clearly for 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

The contributor with an agenda often prevails.
In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia's group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.

In March 2009, Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain.

Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use Web sites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

I did my own research and found rather quickly that the veracity of many of these listed endorsements are less than legitimate. In short, Wikipedia is a great reference , but be sure to verify anything coming from there...particularly when there is an agenda involved (especially if its political or money is involved.)

[PoliticAverse]

1. Wikipedia - where the one with the last edit wins. n/t

[Bubzer]

2. Yeah... there are all sorts of nasty brute-force methods used to force an edit.

[merrily]

3. Seems like a polite way of saying that contributors intent upon misleading readers often prevail.

Seems as though that may be a universal truth, including at DU and IRL. People with an agenda tend to have motivation behind their agenda.

I used to avoid wikipedia entirely because it was supposedly so incredibly unreliable. Then I found out that was not true.

In my experience, wikipedia is excellent for providing an overview and is usually accurate. Also, if you look at the top of the page, you will find links that lead you to discussion of edits (Talk), the edit history and so on. In all, it's a great tool, IMO.

However, if something you read in wikipedia is important to your theory and/or sets off your spidey sense, by all means, do look at other sources.

[Bubzer]

6. I love wikipedia! Its great for references and other source documents.

Most of Wikipedia is perfectly fine. Its when controversial and political topics get discussed that its a really good idea to check the referenced sources.

[merrily]

8. Exactly. And, unfortunately, these days, so much that should not be political is "political."

[davidpdx]

4. I used to participate in Wikipedia quite a bit years ago and gave up on it completely

The edit wars became frustrating and when someone came in with a strong POV, they would continue to insist their version be allowed even if there was no consensus.

[L0oniX]

5. Since this is the Bernie Sanders group how are you relating this to the group?

We're not here to attack Hillary. That's what GDP is for.

[Bubzer]

7. Perhaps I should have posted this in the general section.

Its not an attack on Hillary. She just happens to be first on the list along with the most current edits.
I'm not sure how to move this thread, or I would... sorry.

If you happen to know how, please let me know.