Wikipedia Was Used To A Spread Virus Dont believe everything you read on th

Many people trust the content in Wikipedia, some even cite them as source in their thesis.

What will happen if they got infected by the virus spread by that hacker?

Don't believe everything you read on the web. Remember, there are humans behind those web pages and humans make mistakes.

 

Ray Tomlinson

Programmer, inventor of network email

Vandalism and plagiarism has always been the 2 main problems in Wikipedia. However these problems got more serious these days. As a new project "Citizendium" is going to launch, Wikipedia's position will decrease for certain.

Will Wikipedia eventually disappear from the Internet?

Source article from Techtree.com

I don't see the point. For one, somebody says don't believe everything you read on the web. I will not dispute that, however, it also means that this new project, Citizendium, will also be one of those you shouldn't always believe. As it is, I see it as merely another Wikipedia, only with much more stringent measures to control the accuracy of the data it presents. Still, however, humans are behind that and as the guy said, humans make mistakes.I think Wikipedia works in the sense that the more humans that have access to its data, the more accurate that will be, depending on which version of it has the general consensus of majority of the net surfers. The fact that anyone can modify it means that anyone can correct it. True, it also means that anyone can destroy it but it also implies that any damage done will be repaired and the original content restored much faster.I don't think Wikipedia will be going anytime soon. For one, since it is made by the people and for the people, it can also be understood by the people. It is mostly through Wikipedia that I have come to appreciate other cosmological theories and other nice stuff like String theory (Yeah, I know it's geeky, I need a life, so and so) Were I reading the "real" stuff, that is, science journals, I would only end up discombobulated, understanding almost nothing at all.About quoting wikipedia as sources in theses, I have nothing against that, although I must add that both students and professors should take any information coming from wikipedia with a grain of salt. Unless it's simply just a formality like defining something both the professor and the students already know about anyway, I doubt it is a brilliant idea to be using the Wikipedia as a source.About the virus being spread, what about it? I can hardly imagine (pardon my ignorance here, really) Maybe you could offer a more detailed example how it might be done, or at least, prevented?

You would be very stupid if you quoted Wikipedia in a thesis without checking in other places that the information was correct. Never trust anything in something important.You should also never download anything randomly, I mean, why would you trust Wikipedia if anything on there could have been edited by anyone, so they people who download the virus were far to trusting in my opinion.Citizendium looks good, but even though it sounds like it will possibly be more accurate than Wikipedia , you still shouldn't trust it so much that you take everything on it as fact.I doubt Wikipedia will be going anywhere soon, it has nearly 1.5 million articles, you cannot just forget about that, as Google is still indexing it etc.

Actually college do not allow you to cite from wiki due to the fact, that most of the information is or could be wrong. I only use wiki for quick reference and then go to a .edu base website to get the rest of the info.

however, it also means that this new project, Citizendium, will also be one of those you shouldn't always believe. As it is, I see it as merely another Wikipedia, only with much more stringent measures to control the accuracy of the data it presents. Still, however, humans are behind that and as the guy said, humans make mistakes.

But the information within Citizendium will no doubt be more accurate...

I think Wikipedia works in the sense that the more humans that have access to its data, the more accurate that will be, depending on which version of it has the general consensus of majority of the net surfers.

So if many people believe something that is actually incorrect, will the incorrect information be written in Wikipedia for a long time?

The fact that anyone can modify it means that anyone can correct it. True, it also means that anyone can destroy it but it also implies that any damage done will be repaired and the original content restored much faster.

A number of news report tell us that Wikipedia could not clear up their errors as quickly as you (and I) hoped. Read one of them at CBC.ca. If that's not enough, Google yourself.

I don't think Wikipedia will be going anytime soon. For one, since it is made by the people and for the people, it can also be understood by the people. It is mostly through Wikipedia that I have come to appreciate other cosmological theories and other nice stuff like String theory (Yeah, I know it's geeky, I need a life, so and so) Were I reading the "real" stuff, that is, science journals, I would only end up discombobulated, understanding almost nothing at all.

Good point. I just want to note that the Citizendium project will start with all articles from Wikipedia, as said in their website. They call it Progressive Fork.

About quoting wikipedia as sources in theses, I have nothing against that, although I must add that both students and professors should take any information coming from wikipedia with a grain of salt. Unless it's simply just a formality like defining something both the professor and the students already know about anyway, I doubt it is a brilliant idea to be using the Wikipedia as a source.

I will never cite from Wikipedia when writing thesis, unless the professor says "Citing from wikis can increase your mark"

About the virus being spread, what about it? I can hardly imagine (pardon my ignorance here, really) Maybe you could offer a more detailed example how it might be done, or at least, prevented?

Read the news article at Techtree.com for details on how it might be done. Wikipedia can do nothing to prevent such things from happening again. That's why there's Citizendium.

You should also never download anything randomly, I mean, why would you trust Wikipedia if anything on there could have been edited by anyone, so they people who download the virus were far to trusting in my opinion.

And someone trusted Wikipedia so much that they downloaded the virus...

I doubt Wikipedia will be going anywhere soon, it has nearly 1.5 million articles, you cannot just forget about that, as Google is still indexing it etc.

But Citizendium with start with all articles from Wikipedia. What will happen to Wikipedia after Google starts indexing it?

Actually I do like Wikipedia but when your masterpieces got vandalized by some other stupid people you'll feel really frustrated. And though the articles there are not always accurate, many people still thinks it's content is reliable.
Also read: An article in The Chronicle

The article in the Chronicle kinda highlights the purpose of Wikipedia - for general information, but not for in depth research. I've used Wikipedia in assignment, but never sourced it, rather just get an overview of the topic I'm working on and then look it up in other materials. (Which amounts to verification etc).Citizendium looks interesting, but because of the more stringent measures may find it hard to be as up to date or as vast as the Wiki...

Everyone already knows the name Wikipedia, so I have a hard time believeing Citizendium will be much better. Actually, people are pretty smart if they want to put a virus on wiki. A lot of kids view it for work and stuff, so they might not have protection against viruses. I still trust wiki, although I know it always will be a potential threat. If something is incorrect, just edit it and make everyone else happy. Wikipedia has been abused, but that won't stop it.
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
On this site, they did had Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica . Wikipedia was just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. So, if we can trust Wikipedia, why stop using it?

Edited November 7, 2006 by husker (see edit history)

I would never cite Wikipedia as a source for a thesis or whatnot, but for articles in forums and general information based upon curiosity, I'd certainly post a link thereof and cite my source based on a wiki, since it's usually pretty accurate. For the most part, I trust what I read on Wikipedia, and when something cannot be trusted for-sure, I'll do a Google search and cite a more reputable source.

I always use it and i never get false info. Atleast i think. I usally double check. I kinda hope it goes offline it is begining to fail.