One of the things that disconcerts me the most about Wikipedia is that on subjects I know something about, I can usually pick out two or three mistakes in the lead alone. Yet when I read an article about something I have no previous knowledge of, the article often seems intelligent, comprehensive, and perfectly believable.

Such might be the case for most people when they read today's featured article about Lung Cancer.

For example, right in the second sentence, the definition of "metastasis" uses some high-sounding terms, but is garbled.

However as a wise manager once told me, never bring a problem to someone's attention without first having a solution.

I've created the page Wikipedia Featured Article Analysis on my website, Encyc.org.

I hope to be able to go through, and when I see a featured article where I have some clue, critically pick it apart for the enlightenment of everyone else, and as a cautionary tale about the folly of relying on Wikipedia for information about subjects you know nothing about. Ideally, the word will get out, and people who like to follow the featured articles on Wikipedia will then go and check Encyc.org to see just how badly the Wikipedians bungled.

Of course, I'd love for some help. I know a little bit about some subjects, but when the featured article turns towards obscure 18th century poets or pro wrestling, I won't be able to do much other than nod and skip a day.

- Emperor

Nice spam.

Really? a) I have permission, b.) It's a legitimate link and article, c) WR has no wiki of its own, and d) Don't you think it's better that sites that want to criticize Wikipedia work together? There's safety in numbers, you know.

I thought we did have somewhere?

I frequently find that I am directed to WP, (by Google of course) only to find multiple errors in the "definition" of something I am looking for, or the directions for where I am going. It is, of course, part of the territory called the web, and until Google can find other sources besides WP (at the top of their list) it will remain a senseless game of questioning the gatekeeper, as well as, the messenger.

The inertia will swiftly change course as Google begins a new paradigm more directed toward it's own projects and away from Jimmy's. That will be the bell tolling on WP.

Emperor,

Thanks for starting this topic. I wish there was more of this sort of commentary on WR. Thanks for exposing potential problems with dangerous Wikipedia articles. I really wish you had posted all your comments here, which probably gets more readers than your site (no offence intended).

As I mentioned before, I think the Featured Article process has some serious flaws. And I say this as someone who has worked on quite a few. There seems to be a much greater focus on prose, spelling, and sentence flow than on reliability, in the FAC process. Sheep81 said it best: "I am pretty sure that the Project could send an article to FAC that was riven with purely imaginary information extensively cited to nonexistent literature, and the only thing that would keep it from being passed would be grammatical and formatting concerns."

He wasn't talking about a medical article, but the the principle is still the same.

I know one MD worked on this article during FAC, but he's not a cancer specialist or anything. Stedman's clearly supports your assertion about metastasis. I hope someone knowledgeable about this will fix that assertion.

The rest of what you wrote seems nitpicky (like the redundancy), but I don't know anything about the subject. I'd like to see a full review!



Probably we could all have a good laugh at some of the Pro Wrestling FAs, but it would have no real impact. I'd stick with the articles that matter. JMHO

Thanks for the feedback. I think part of the reason more of this isn't done is because it's time-consuming, and the people who enjoy that sort of thing are already working for Wikipedia. Just getting that little page together took me upwards of a half an hour.

I think Wikipedia's reputation is really made vulnerable by not getting its featured article system in order. It's one thing to be able to say, oh this is a wiki and everything is a work in progress, but quite another for the entire community to throw its stamp of approval on something and throw it out in the world, saying, "This is the best we've got."

I could get into why I didn't just post the whole thing here, but that really belongs in WRR.

We do, but the pages (other than mainpage) are only visible when logged in, and you can only get an account if you ask Somey or someone nicely, so only a handful of people can read it.

Where is it?

wikipediareview.com/wiki

Thanks. Nice flying rabbit.

The diagnosis section starts as if Wikipedia is giving medical advice. Not only what you have reported is wrong. It is as wrong to suggest that only if suspicions are high brochoscopy and/or CR scan are run. This might have been true years ago, but does not represent the current reality. It is like to say that if someone does not have strong symptoms to indicate colon cancer that a negative Fecal occult blood test should be enough. Regular X-ray (lack contrast) do not rule out lung cancer, brochoscopy and CT scan are the diagnostic tools.

I wonder how long it will be until we hear about the first person injured or killed due to following Wikipedia's medical advice. I bet whatever it is will make a good news story.

Twain bankrupted himself investing in a premature version of an automated typesetting machine. I think he would have been fascinated by wikis and ultimately he would have become a profound and riotously funny critic of Wikipedia.

Indeed, one of Twain's first jobs was working on his brother's newspaper. He wrote an article about a terrible accident in which thousands were dead and wounded, but noted "as the aforementioned accident hasn't happened yet, we shall have to say, to be continued..." WP would have banned him, for sure!

He would have enjoyed mocking WP. Maybe he would have said something like:

"An encyclopedia anyone can edit? Is everyone so eager to show their ignorance for free?"

"When I write a book and show my ignorance, I get paid and praised for it. When Wikipedians write an article and show their ignorance, they get no money and get ridiculed!"

Maybe, I'm no Twain scholar, but some of the things he said are universal and some things I find on his WikiQuote page sound like something some satirist today would say.

The WP Reference Desk makes it clear that WP is no medical journal or reference, though WP in general could do better to explain that. I once had a problem with gout in my toe and I looked up on WP what it was and how to treat it. The article said they might have to operate or inject my toe joint with painkillers! I was afraid to go to the doctor for fear he'd cut my toe off! Then one of my friends gave me some great advice: Internet medicine is bad and you're better off going to the doctor. It did turn out to be gout (though I didn't go to the doctor) and cherry juice and exercise dealt with it. But WP scared me to death!

Twain would've had even Jimbo laughing at himself.

I just took a look at the Gout Article. Yikes, right from the first line! Yet another obvious example of Wikipedia's uselessness.

"I never let Wikipedia interfere with my education"