Friday, December 15, 2006

Wikipedia - So Great Yet So Flawed

I was having a little debate with a friend of mine over the whole Cindy Klassen winning the Lou Marsh Trophy, when I happened upon Wikipedia during a Google search for some NBA info.

I was stunned to come across this:

"The National Basketball Association originated in 1946 with 11 teams, and through a sequence of team expansions, reductions, and relocations currently consists of 30 teams, 29 of which are based in the United States and 1 in Canada. The Boston Celtics are the most successful franchise with 16 NBA Finals wins. The next most successful franchise is the Los Angeles Lakers, who hold 14 championships. Following the Lakers are the Chicago Bulls with 6 championships, all of them won over an 8-year span during the 1990s. The Toronto Raptors, who won their first championship in 2006, are the defending champions.

The current league organization divides the teams into two conferences. Each conference has three divisions, and each division has five teams. The current divisional alignment was introduced in the 2004-05 season."

Ok, who caught that? Everyone, I hope. If you didn't, read it again.

If you still don't get it, well, you clearly don't know anything about the NBA or the Raptors, so you probably won't care.

See, Wikipedia is created and moderated by its users. That's gosh gee-willickers swell, except when the information is completely and utterly wrong.

If the info about the NBA is wrong, imagine what other "little" mistakes can be found in this great resource. (Are you reading this Cory?)

Now keep in mind that there are one or two gullible folks out there who believe what they read on the Net...

See, back in "my day" (many moons ago) you were not allowed to use the internet as a resource for essays. Now it's typically the only cited resource. What changed? The internet is just as unreliable, if not more so with greater user interface. Wikipedia is proof of that.


Am I right or just old?

Old. Got it.


Tristan said...

I added you to the Wikipedia once, as a Ryerson graduate and "notable blogger". I later removed it (as I'm known to do).

It is important to note that nothing in this entry was a lie, but it is another great example of how a moron like myself can go about intentionally tainting a publicly edited reference website like Wikipedia.

PS said...

Thanks for the thought, Tristan. It would have been interesting to see what you'd written, if only as an exercise in what you think of me!

I would have felt compelled, of course, to revisit the page on a regular basis to make sure that no one dropped by to spread some filty lies about me.

I mean, can you imagine if someone actually tried to say that I am NOT God's gift to women? Sheesh!