Ever Wonder Where Wikipedia’s Info Comes From? Here Are Its Top 5 Sources
- Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:52am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
Due to the fact that that Wikipedia is “collaboratively edited,” leaving open the potential for error and misrepresentation of facts, many academics have long advised pupils to avoid using the site as a source. Still, the online encyclopedia of sorts does have many truthful posts and contributors and encouraged to fact check and source information posted on the site.
But where does Wikipedia, which has more than 22 million articles, get all of its information? WebEmpires.org “crawled the entire database of English Wikipedia to compile a list of Wikipedia’s top sources.” What it found was more than 22 million websites, which it then proceeded to rank by number of times it was used as a source in articles.
The top five sources of information are as follows (see the full list here):
- Google Books
- Web.Archive.org
- BBC News
- YouTube
- New York Times
Wikipedia sources (Image: Web Empire)
As Web Empires points out, some of you may be wondering about the #2 spot — Web Archive. This site archives content from websites that have been taken offline, for various reasons. Web Empire writes that it expects Web Archive to take the top slot as the most used Wikipedia source in the “near future.”
(H/T: Gizmodo)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 458 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 313 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 209 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (76)
oinia
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:15pmEvery single news website on the Wikipedia source list is left-leaning. It’s like a shopping list of global liberal news outlets.
That in and of itself discredits Wikipedia. Regardless of whether this is intentional or a by-product of its contributors’ tendencies, bias is bias.
Report Post »n2woods
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:52pmRemember who started the modern day movement to change the meaning of words and, when powerful enough, book burning.
The Nazi, Communists and other lefties utilize the mantra, “the ends justify the means” to include lying, cheating and “any means necessary” to win over people to their way of thinking. One must understand that people who already know their opinions are flawed utilize such tactics. If you believe your cause is just and true, then you need not win by overlooking a few “discretions.”
It only stands to reason that the next step for the leftist in power is to alter the main encyclopedic source, Wikipedia. Only real books cannot be altered. Keep a library of the classics for surely the left hates those books the most.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:14pmControl the language, you control the conversation. Control the conversation, you control the country.
Report Post »Shiroi Raion
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 11:08amWow. No wonder I keep finding misinformation and sometimes obvious flat out lies in Wikipedia. I had no idea almost all their sources were from Liberal propagandists. So much for objective reasoning and study.
Report Post »Lawrence7
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:40pm3. BBC News
5. New York Times
Well, that pretty much explains were most of the misleading and biased Wiki information comes from.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:43pmThere are some nasty things on YouTube as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if they use video comments as citations.
Report Post »wwyta
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:51pmJust for kicks I just edited the wikipedia page for Peter Orszag. You remember him, the “Fannie Mae” is too big to fail” guy.
This section was edited
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_R._Orszag&pe=1&#Career
Adding this text – let’s see how long it sticks.
Report Post »Orszag has authored many econometric studies. Of particular note was a study He co-authored with Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in 2002. A paper titled “Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-Based Capital Standard“ in which they concluded that ”on the basis of historical experience, the risk to the government from a potential default on GSE debt is effectively zero.“ With the following caveat ”the risk-based capital standard, while based on a hypothetical economic shock significantly more severe than anything that the economy has actually experienced over the past forty years, may fail to reflect the probability of another Great Depression-like scenario.”[10]
DMANFLA
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:23pmThe Truth has no agenda. God those pin-heads (our supposed betters) are consistantly wrong and on the wrong side of history. I thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Report Post »Anadara
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:29pmFacebook was ranked number 22. Social media is being used as a source for their information? …Figures.
Report Post »obumma
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:21pmCheck out the talk articles in ‘Progressivism’. Someone was trying to add Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters to the ‘list of progressives historically in US Congress’, and the leftist thugs kept deleting them. Sources were cited where these three IN THEIR OWN WORDS described themselves as progressives, but the socialist gatekeepers kept taking them out. Perhaps ‘progressive’ is now a shunned title now that progressives have been exposed as being socialists under a different name?
Report Post »Calimann83
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:35pmLiberals, progressives… they dont like any labels that might identify them as anything that might be used against them.
Report Post »wannahug
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:56pmFigured Wikipedia was a Liberal Leftist organization! So what is new?!
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:31pmOne big misconception I see throughout these comments is that there are ANY sources that are either completely reliable or non-biased. Even at graduate level, where peer-reviewed journal articles are the primary sources, the articles will still be written from a certain viewpoint or with a certain bias. I have read the most ridiculous peer-reviewed articles that can be conceived. This is one of my biggest complaints of higher education. It pretty much is a snobbish game. Just because a lunatic article is peer-reviewed does not realistically make it any more valid or invalid that some schmuck’s blog post. Everyone has an opinion, it is up to the researcher to mount the argument.
Report Post »Robert Hawk
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:30pmWiki Pedia is a Marxist run organization. I have personal experience with that bunch. I posted historical and factual reference from biblical texts (KJV) and was kicked off the site because the truth did not match the Marxist slanted yarn WikiPedia was attempting to promote. Wikipedia promotes its self as open but all of its content is overseen by a few opinionated Marxists who only accept data which is slanted toward. Marx & Engels dialectic. The reliability of data on Wikipedia is only second to that being provided by political spin doctors. Its an accurate statement to ask students to avoid referencing wikipedia, unless working on research which indicates how Marxists use the media as a form of disinformation and subversion.
Report Post »Matt
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:02pmThis is only websites. Wikipedia also cites something that you may have heard of called BOOKS. Its where most of their more useful information comes from.
So why is that not in the list? Google books is not the same thing as ACTUAL BOOKS.
Report Post »Sean In LI
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:54pmYou can’t hyperlink to a book in your local library. Most books have been scanned are in “Google Books” at this point, so they link to the digitized version for ease of reference.
That said, Wikipedia is a leftist-controlled pablum machine, completely unreliable as a true “source”.
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:00pmIf you try to cite an actual BOOK on Wikipedia, some Wiki-nazi will paste in “[Citation needed]“
Report Post »Todd Decker
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:53amI loathe Wikipedia, mainly because of how the self-appointed “wiki gods” like to lord over certain articles, especially anime & manga related. Amazing what useful information suddenly gets dropped because, “I don’t think it should be here, and I have influence within Wikipedia, therefore I purge things to the fires of hell.” *_*
Report Post »OniKaze
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:25amTruth being told… Right on…
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:33amIn addition, the Democrat party hires entire rooms full of people whose only job is to edit Wikipedia, removing any embarassing facts from references to Democrats, while inserting misinformation and downright fabrication into articles about Republicans or conservatives.
Report Post »oinia
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:52pmWikipedia is to “encyclopedic reliability” what the mainstream media is to “journalistic integrity,“ and what the education system is to ”scholarship.”
In other words, a wholly co-opted propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
Report Post »Tigress1
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:31amRule #1 is to never blindly trust ANY source. For the most part, I’ve found Wikipedia to be pretty accurate, but at times my “Progressive Sensing Antenna” is alerted and further research is demanded. A positive thing about Wikipedia is also the same thing that people often say is a negative, and that is the fact that anybody can add to an article. Oftentimes when my “Progressive Sensing Antenna” is alerted, the next sentence will give the Conservative viewpoint where someone else added to the article. This always makes me laugh! They were caught!
Report Post »objectivetruth
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:54amYeah I find that for science based or hard facts its not bad.Pretty accurate.Personally I check the facts vefore using it as a source.Then its usually only used either as a backup source or a one point source if I’m time constrained.
Report Post »When it comes to more open ended subjects its not necessarily my first go to.Like you said it presents both points.I’m looking for the facts butressed by either comfirmed incomplete fact opinion or a tangible clue pre research.Its usually one of those that has sent me into research mode.What I don’t need is to make a presentment based on someone elses opinion without facts to back it.Thats when I go to other sources.
Still I’d rather see wikkipedia as a source site than a opinion piece.Nothing like a long diatribe to only be sited with an opinion piece and nothing else concrete
The0bserver
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:12pmOne thing I learned in college: Go to primary sources, not somebody’s summary of the source. Read the primary source yourself, and draw your own conclusions. You’d be surprised how many times people copy wrongly.
Report Post »chfields62
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:44amgetting info from Wiki is about as smart as getting info from the lame stream media…..
Report Post »Haystack
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:23amFYI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded
Report Post »John 3:16
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:07amThat site is just a bunch of liberal garbage, from what I’ve seen.
Report Post »FireBear
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:36amAt my university in my department using wikipedia for papers is officially banned. Has been for years. The reasons for that have always been perfectly obvious.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:53amYour university and your department clearly does not keep up the times. I bet they feared electricity when it was first controlled also.
“Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica”
Report Post »http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:22am@Vote Bush: Nor is Britannica an accepted source in a University paper; primary sources only! A practice that I feel could greatly enhance the level of discourse around this place.
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:30amHa Ha Ha! VoteBushIn12 is an idiot !! Has he never written a paper before!!
Report Post »QuincySmith
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:31amVote;
I understand now how you make such outlandish comments, you believe youtube, BBC, and the NY Times. Explains everything!
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:48amGood for you BUSHIE..so you stick to wikipedia champ and retain your “collectively edited” ignorance.
Report Post »wwyta
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:23pmMany high schools also ban it’s use as a source. Thankfully.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:00pmI’m simply saying you cannot discredit its information as it is on par with other worldly publications.
Of course you’re not allowed to cite them in papers, but to “ban” them when conducting research for papers is far and above ridiculous. Unless I am misunderstanding your use of the word “use”, but I take it to mean any endeavor relating to the act of writing the paper.
And I have written plenty of papers. I should need not go into detail as, being a graduate student, it should be understood.
Report Post »oinia
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:08pmVoteBush -
“I’m simply saying you cannot discredit its information as it is on par with other worldly publications.”
No one can discredit Wikipedia’s information?!?!?! The worldly publications it’s on par with include YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. So your standard of academic reliability is that someone posted it somewhere online.
Where did you go to grad school – Disneyland?
Report Post »Melika
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:28amMore like Stupidpedia.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:24amWikipedia is a good “pre-research” source. It is my initial stop where I can see what the arguments are or where the controversy is. It shows mainstream thought on a subject. It also supplies a bibliography so I can start my research. No, it is NOT authoritative and should NEVER be used as a source, but it can at least show where the road is.
Even though I work in religious circles (fundamental, evangelical, Baptist…) I have found Wikipedia to be as fair as can be expected for a secular site that allows users to edit the information. Wikipedia represents the “common” knowledge, though that does not mean it is the correct knowledge.
Report Post »FireBear
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:52amAgreed, it’s really good for getting a bibliography. The mainstream thoughts, though, I’ve found them often very wanting in my field. There have been rewrites based on facts, but more often then not are even the sources for those highly….. well…. I would say “questionable”, but when one starts using a certain people as source, then it’s more like “retarded”. Not going to name any names here, but using such “sources”, which then seep into papers anyway, is really a plague in my field.
Report Post »Anadara
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:33pmAgreed. I do the same but will find that original sources are not cited very often. I still use wiki for quickies.
Report Post »Amy
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:05amGoogle Books? Thousands of people, myself included, volunteered with PROJECT GUTENBERG to ‘transcribe’ publicly owned books from raw image to digital ‘ebooks.’ …sticks in my craw.
Report Post »willingtoupe
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:58amBritannitca (dot ) com folks. Worth the yearly $60 price.
Report Post »blanco5
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:52amAnd snopes is run by the leftys too, so I never use it as a resource for finding out the truth.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:03amWhat source do you use ? When I see BBC and the NYT, I see ” international Lefty propaganda ! ” ( always repeated daily for Americans on their American best friend, NPR ! Same propaganda . Same Obama Re-election propaganda but repackaged as ” news ! ” )
Report Post »1TrueOne55
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:16amIt does not matter about who runs the sight. As Glenn has been known to say:
THE TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA!!!!!!!
How you interpret the TRUTH is where your agenda lies. And Saul/Paul the Apostle said and many Jewish Scholars believe that God does not see color or ideology he sees the heart and its intentions in deciding right from wrong.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:32amThe truth might not have an agenda. but our Obama Lefties sure do : it‘s the Soros’ international Left wing political agenda delivered to the White House with the Occupation of Barack Obama !
Report Post »objectivetruth
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:02amWhat if the source has been infiltrated?Yes it can happen.Facts are changed to suit the perp and thier agendas.Its called Damnatio Immorraie.Its usuially used in war and in politics.Typically used by the victors to write out of history the losers.Its especially used if the loser was well liked.Its currently being used by the enemy of the state to rewrite our history.It will be used in decades to come for a torturous agenda.It can be found in the national archives.They are rewriting our marines and soldiers lives for their own agenda.Why do you think I keep telling them to get a copy of their real record when they leave service and have it copied/Make sure they have several copies stashed in several places.
Report Post »The0bserver
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:15pmThe creators of snope admit that they are liberals. Can you trust anything they say in reference to politics.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:51amTechnical articles tend to be very good but there is no political agenda to IPv6, 4G standards or the properties of sodium. History is a little more problematic as “history is written by the winner” and Wiki lets the looser have their say. Biographies are garbage! Trust one of the Media Matters trolls to edit a bio of Rush or Glenn?
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:00amEstablished profiles are locked and reviewed for credibility. You need to be a registered, authenticated, contributor to modify them.
If the truth hurts don’t read it, but arguing over its validity is nothing but a whiny waste of time.
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:32amVoteBushIn12′s Translation:
We know that Wikipedia is biased, but I can’ t stand when people emphasize this truth! Just fall in line with our agenda already!!!
Report Post »QuincySmith
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:34amOkay, 12, who authenticates registration? Bet you have to go to wiki to find out.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:21pmSo BUSHIE is a collectively edited idiot.
Report Post »Robert Hawk
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:34pmI was registered and authenticated and printed textual reference from the bible no less and was permanently banned by the Marxists at Wikipedia. That is not whining, its factual. There is really nothing on Wikipedia which is reliable information. It turned into a political subversion and disinformation site, long ago. The only truth in Wikipedia is that the Marxist have complete control over the data displayed on that site.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:08pm@ROBERT HAWK
Sorry the Bible isn’t considered a reliable source?
Really I’m not sorry. You should be adult enough to understand the difference between substantiable facts and fairy tales.
You can’t write a work of fiction and cite it as “evidence” towards its own claims.
Everything written on WIkipedia is either cited or indicates that it needs citation. You can directly trace where information came from and determine for yourself whether or not you consider it a reputable source. I don’t know what more you could possibly need.
Report Post »Displacedsoutherner
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:48amI think this is where Elizabeth Warren “confirmed” her Native American ancestry.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:52pmNice
Report Post »historyguy48
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:27amComrades it all depends upon what you are researching. If it is something relatively simple like the captial of Botswania, it works well. If it’s the physics involved in bullet trajectories, not soo well.
Report Post »For basic historical facts, sometimes it it excellent. Other times it is nonsense. Origional sources are usually a far better way to go, or someone who uses origional sources like Ambrose or Barton.
It is a quick reference work and it even tells you that the information may nor be accurate. So what does that tell you?
obumma
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:24pmOh, check out what they’ve done to Barton on his Wikipedia page – and better yet, try to edit his page to remove the lies and smears. The socialist gatekeepers will be on it within seconds to revert it back.
Report Post »JediKnight
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:16pmI have read some of the “up for removal” pages where authors of the articles cited were told that what they were saying wasn‘t valid because it wasn’t in the “New York Times” or some other “well respected newspaper or magazine”. It was an article for an obscure piece of a minor operating system (X windows on Linux if you’re curious, that’s pretty obscure to most people). Even though the guy was right, the blog he linked to was dead on, and the developers agreed with him, they still wanted to not only remove the page but also list his summarized version as “citation needed”. And that was just an article on computer programming.
I’ve even seen articles that have a link to the library of Congress that say “citation needed”, yet the link to the library of Congress confirms exactly what the article states. Why “citation needed”? Oh, maybe because it had to do with Reagan signing a bill that removed regulations :)
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:06amNo suprise there with Wikipedia.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:03amand to all our trolls
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:40pmThe discussion is dead because of trolls. I’m this close to leaving.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:16pmNot as much here as elsewhere, however. Sigh….
Report Post »Hoax And Chains
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:02amAnd this is the source of information for morons like JZS. Actual research is a scary prospect for some people… much lazier and easy to just trust wiki…
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:13amAll the long winded trolls engage this mouse medium.
Report Post »It’s the wisdom of the wax voluminous.