Can you give JUST ONE example of Wikipedia getting a fact wrong?

It said that Michael Jackson got a degree at Bringum Young University for over 9 months.

There is also this:

Rush Limbaugh who 'hates' wikipedia was FOOLED BY IT!

Facts About Pandas Wikipedia

For Euthanasia laws by country, it used to say that it was legal in Norway. It went so far as to put names of people who'd used the law. It was like that for quite some time.

"Wikipedia was able to answer significantly fewer drug information questions (40.0%) compared with MDR (82.5%; p < 0.001). Wikipedia performed poorly regarding information on dosing, with a score of 0% versus the MDR score of 90.0%. Answers found in Wikipedia were 76.0% complete, while MDR provided answers that were 95.5% complete; overall, Wikipedia answers were less complete than those in Medscape (p < 0.001). No factual errors were found in Wikipedia, whereas 4 answers in Medscape conflicted with the answer key; errors of omission were higher in Wikipedia (n = 48) than in MDR (n = 14). There was a marked improvement in Wikipedia over time, as current entries were superior to those 90 days prior (p = 0.024)."

http://www.theannals.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/1...

"The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations."

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?article...

And a list of the top 15 wikipedia mistakes:http://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/the_15_bigge...

There's also the famous John Seigenthaler case: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20...

Just found another one. The English version of Wikipedia has the wrong dates for Bergen being the capitol of Norway (the bokmål Norwegian one is correct).

Also, apparently both Stavanger and Trondheim are the fourth largest cities in Norway.

The Hausmania article has several wrong dates and inaccuracies, for example, the artists began to use the property in 1999, not 2000 (that was the date of the first exhibition). They rented the property from 1999, they didn't begin renting it in 2003. The article claims they started having problems with the city in 2004, this is completely false. In 2004, the city bought the property FOR them.

(I'm doing research on Norway atm, that's why all the specifics).

One time I searched pandas, and just to experiment I wrote that pandas eat robots. I called my friend to look up pandas on wikipedia and sure enough she said "Did you see the robots thing on pandas?!" It went down a few minutes later by a moderator. If anybody changes something it goes up for a few minutes, and moderators can't be educated in every single subject so they often allow false information. Wikipedia's a good sight, but it's bad for listing sources because of that chance something could be wrong.

Are you serious? I could give ten off the top of my head, and a hundred if I actually researched it a little bit. If you're tired of hearing about John Seigenthaler, Daniel Brandt, Ron Livingston, etc., how about Yousif Ghafari? For eight days in 2008, Wikipedia said Ghafari is a Muslim. And since then, it has said he's a Maronite Christian. But no citation was ever given for either religion. For all we know, he might be a Jew!

There are irrelevant assets and deceptive assets. What i could be maximum worried approximately is misunderstood assets. In a large form of situations, Wikipedia wisely cites appropriate assets. yet then once you examine the referred to source your self, curiously that the message of the source has been innocently misunderstood, or in some situations, intentionally misrepresented. you are able to no longer consistently be specific that's which. I Googled the paper Robert mentions. that's genuine, regardless of if it comes from ArXiV, no longer the "mag of yankee Astrophysics." all of us who can examine English can examine that paper on magnetograms and vectors and all that stuff. It does no longer mean they are going to understand any of it. That they do no longer understand any of it won't ward off them from going to Wikipedia and enhancing articles as though they actually did. of direction specialists could make errors, too, and misunderstand a source. yet with peer evaluate, different specialists verify that the assets are valid, appropriate, and understood. In Robert's occasion, yet another expert ought to ask Robert, "are you able to lend me a replica of the mag of yankee Astrophysics?" On Wikipedia, somebody else sees "mag of yankee Astrophysics" and that they are like, "properly, that's sourced, so there is not any ought to do something."

Back when they we're starting out, it was much more open and people would purposefully enter incorrect information as a joke or for private gain. Now they've tightened the system a little and the errors are mostly genuine, less common, and more quickly fixed.

Wikipedia is updated by common everday folk like you and me, error's are made constantly but very quickly corrected by someone who actually knows ;)

It is rare. I generally agree it is an accurate source of info. But this one just happened.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy either.

You do know about the Articles forum, right?

You have to actually click on the link, you see. Your mom doesn't do that for you, and neither does your special-ed teacher.