|
Criticism of Wikipedia — of the content, procedures, and operations, and of the Wikipedia community — covers many subjects, topics, and themes about the nature of Wikipedia as an open-source encyclopedia of subject-entries that almost anyone can edit. The purpose of the Wikipedia project has been criticized for the uneven handling, acceptance, and retention of articles about controversial subjects. The principal concerns of the critics are the factual reliability of the content; the readability of the prose; and a clear article-layout; the existence of systemic bias, of gender bias, and of racial bias among the editorial community that is Wikipedia. Further concerns are that the organization allows the participation of anonymous editors (facilitating editorial vandalism); the existence of social stratification (allowing cliques); and over-complicated rules (allowing editorial quarrels), which conditions permit the misuse of Wikipedia. Unreliable content; in “Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge” (2010), Edwin Black characterized the editorial content of articles as a mixture of “truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods”. In that vein, in “Wisdom?: More like Dumbness of the Crowds” (2011), Oliver Kamm said that the encyclopedic articles usually are dominated by the editors with the loudest and most persistent editorial voices (talk pages and edit summaries), usually by an interest group with an ideological “axe to grind” on the subject, topic, or theme of the article in question.〔 Politics and ideology; in “The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia” (2012), by Timothy Messer–Kruse, and in “You Just Type in What You are Looking for: Undergraduates’ Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia” (2012), by Mónica Colón–Aguirre and Rachel A. Fleming–May, the authors analyzed and criticized the undue-weight policy (relative importance of a given source), and concluded that, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not about providing correct and definitive information about a subject, but to present, as editorially dominant, the majority-opinion perspective taken by the authors of the sources for the article; therefore, the uneven application of the undue-weight policy creates omissions (of fact and of interpretation) that might give the reader false knowledge about the subject matter, which knowledge the reader has based upon the factually-incomplete content of the Wikipedia article.〔 Hostile environment; in ''Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia'' (2014), Dariusz Jemielniak (a Wikipedia steward), said that the complexity of the rules and laws governing editorial content and the behavior of the editors is a burden for new editors and a licence for the “office politics” of disruptive editors. In the follow-up article, “The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia” (2014), Jemielniak said that abridging and rewriting the editorial rules-and-laws of Wikipedia for clarity of purpose and simplicity of application would resolve the bureaucratic bottleneck of too many rules.〔〔 In ''The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity is Causing its Decline'' (2013), Aaron Halfaker said that the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the decline in editorial participation that began in 2009 — frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia. Misuse; in “Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?” (2008), the Hoover Institution said that Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open-source website, the editorial content of the articles is readily subjected to manipulation and propaganda. Therefore, in academia, the handbook ''Academic Integrity at MIT'' (2014), officially informs students that Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source, that “the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable — use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research.”〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Citing Electronic Sources )〕 ==Criticism of content== 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Criticism of Wikipedia」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|