Irish history articles on Wikipedia

[evercloserunion]

I've been looking over a few Irish history articles on Wikipedia, and a few are in serious need of editing. I haven't looked over many, but the 1913 strike and lockout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_lockout) and Cumann na nGaedheal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumann_na_nGaedheal) are certainly in need of updating. Just thought I'd inform you all in case any of you wanna give it a go. There are probably a few more articles in need of editing as well. I'd do it, but I'm currently studying for the Leaving Cert. If they're not considerably improved by the end of examinations (unfortunately mine run all the way to the 22nd), I'll give it a go myself.

[Dasayev]

I wouldn't trust wikipedia when it comes to Irish history. I remember checking to see who was writing some of the articles, only to discover that some 14 year old from Somerset was!

[mollox]

From a recent press report: According to one of its co-founders, Larry Sanger, Wikipedia is unreliable and "broken beyond repair". Sanger said the community was "often dysfunctional", the content was unreliable and it had serious management problems.

Could be a long days work to fix the Irish entries, if the reliability of posts on politics.ie is anything to go by!

[Gombeen]

If you think wikipedia is good for anything more intellectual than finding out trivia about Family Guy or Star Wars, you're really not in any position to be trying to write accurate history narative.

[DaraghM]

What specific complaints do you have about these articles?

[Leopold Bloom]

I wouldn't trust wikipedia when it comes to Irish history. I remember checking to see who was writing some of the articles, only to discover that some 14 year old from Somerset was!

How do you find out who the authors of Wikipedia articles are?

[Pidge]

I wouldn't trust wikipedia when it comes to Irish history. I remember checking to see who was writing some of the articles, only to discover that some 14 year old from Somerset was!

How do you find out who the authors of Wikipedia articles are?

Go to the history tab at the top of each article.

[Insider2007]

If you think wikipedia is good for anything more intellectual than finding out trivia about Family Guy or Star Wars, you're really not in any position to be trying to write accurate history narative.

Actually that isn't true. I was going some research on a topic lately. As a matter of curiousity after I completed my research I looked at how the topic (a complicated issue on comparative government) was covered in encyclopaedias. Briittanica was appalling. The World Book poor. Wikipedia, to my astonishment, was fantastic. I happen to know quite a lot about the topic for professional reasons. There was only 1 error anywhere in the articles on the topic, and even that was a minor one. Out of curiousity I looked at it coverage on a range of issues to do with Ireland and found it in general better than any other encyclopaedia. It has its faults but many of its Irish pages are fantastic. Its coverage of Irish elections is better than any other mainstream encyclopaedia. It covers obscure aspects of Irish history in remarkable depth.

Because it is open edit, what is\ says has to be checked and verified. In my experience it has less errors than just about any encyclopaedia and is lightyears ahead of the god-awful Encarta!

[DaraghM]

I agree with Insider (for once.) On a range of topics in my field (some rather obscurantist bits of Social Science and Russian politics) its pretty good. Not always great, but it gets the basic lines right which is what any Encyclopedia should aspire to.

[forest]

I find the site great for finding out particualr and factual infomation on history
If you are looking fior analysis yes the site may be biased but so is everything else you read.
Simply because and article doesn't back up your pov in relation to a certain topic does not make it wrong

Personally I find wikkipedia one of the best websites out there