Worst Wikipedia ever!

[Perd Hapley]

Check out their entry for this wacky preacher, Tony Alamo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Alamo

Tony Alamo (born 1934) as Bernie Lazar Hoffman, a American preacher, singer, entrepreneur and evangelist. He runs one of the largest fundamentalist organizations in the world, and is exposing the false doctrine of Roman Catholicism, believing the Pope is an Antichrist as written in the [Image:Noforgiveness.jpg La Times article]. Converted in 1964 is renowned for being the preacher who has the hearing ears from God and the preacher who really tells it like it is. Tony Alamo is the real thing, the real deal.

The church's enormous growth and success also attracted the attention of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). CAN has a significant ideological and financial interest in the destruction of churches and so-called "new religions" they unlawfully deem illegitimate, particularly those which demonstrate success in attracting large numbers of converts among young people.  CAN went after Mr. Alamo and his ministry in the worst tradition of the Salem witch hunts, the 19th century attacks on the Mormons, and other examples of religious intolerance.

I didn't know Wiki even allowed such biased nonsense.  

Share your Bad Wiki sightings.

[Firethorn]

I didn't know Wiki even allowed such biased nonsense.  

Share your Bad Wiki sightings.

Wiki <> Standard Encyclopedia

Wikipedia doesn't practice much editorial control over entries, trusting instead in group editing and moderation.  There was a case where a biased group got a few trusted editors and they started approving some biased articles, so procedures were adjusted.

Thing is, something as obscure as Tony Alamo probably doesn't get pulled up often.

If you're so concerned about it, I suggest that you register with them and become an editor.

[Perd Hapley]

Concerned?  No, I just thought it was hilarious.  I haven't wikied that much, so I was surprised to see it.

[Iain]

Was there not a case of an editing war taking place on a politicians profile and most of the IP's coming from Capitol Hill?

[mfree]

Bring it to their attention, or flag it as biased yourself. That's the beauty of things at Wiki....

[Perd Hapley]

It has a bias warning on it, and there's some discussion about it on the talk page.  Why wouldn't they just replace it with something like:  

Tony Alamo: 1934 -
American preacher and co-founder of the seventies "Jesus people" movement
Link to his webpage

I guess I just don't know much about the Wiki.

[BryanP]

Why wouldn't they just replace it with something like:  

Tony Alamo: 1934 -
American preacher and co-founder of the seventies "Jesus people" movement
Link to his webpage

I guess I just don't know much about the Wiki.

You see, that's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia and other wiki-type systems.  "They" is you.  If you think the entry is poorly written or factually incorrect then you can write your own article and put it in place.  Or at least expand on the existing article to give a counterpoint.  If others disagree with you they will edit it again.  If a page attracts an excessive number of edits (an edit war between you and an Alamo-ite, for example) then the Powers That Be on Wikipedia may take notice and look in to it.  I've never spent much time there, but I believe they have a forum where people can discuss this sort of thing.

Personally I've only made a few minor edits on Wikipedia pages, but every little bit helps.  I think the last edit I made was on a firearms article.  The term "magazine" in the article was incorrectly linked to the Wikipedia entry on periodicals.  I found the correct page for a firearm magazine and corrected the link.

[Firethorn]

Was there not a case of an editing war taking place on a politicians profile and most of the IP's coming from Capitol Hill?

Among other things.  That's why articles for big controversial polititicans like the president tend to be locked, requiring you to be more than a casual wiki editor to change it.

The way the system works, if you abuse your privilages to vandalize a page, your account can be reset back to square one, requiring you to get a good reputation again before you can edit the controversial pages.

From what I understand, it can be alot like slashdot's karma system.

[Mannlicher]

well, this is the problem with Wikipedia.  Anyone can post anything.  No posts require vetting, coroboration or proof.  What you see is what was posted.  Anyone with an agenda can post as 'fact', any crap they want.

[RevDisk]

well, this is the problem with Wikipedia.  Anyone can post anything.  No posts require vetting, coroboration or proof.  What you see is what was posted.  Anyone with an agenda can post as 'fact', any crap they want.

So post corrections, backed up with sources.   Very simple concept.  

Wikipedia is no different from the rest of the internet, and still better than most MSM outlets.   I don't recall any regular medium for corrections in mainstream anti-gun articles.   Nor do I see much vetting or factual proof in most anti-gun articles in various newspapers.   Heck, I often wonder what reality they live in.  Automatic revolvers, semiautomatic rifles that are magically capable of performance levels of the GE M134 minigun, etc.

[DrAmazon]

And my students wonder why I get so upset when they use Wikipedia as a "primary source" for college level science papers.  Discrimination of the value of information is a skill NOT being taught in the schools.

[cordex]

Wikipedia is very useful to guide additional research.  Often times it will point you in the right direction, even if the data isn't 100% accurate.