Jens Ropers wrote:
If you doubt the standards of our editorial review mechanisms, go try and introduce some decidedly un-encyclopaedic (unproven, contentious and/or unacademic, etc.) information into an article of your choice. Then check back and see how long your contribution will remain in the article. My confidence is high that -- depending on how much this contribution falls short of encyclopedic standards -- you will find your contribution challenged on the respective article's discussion page (where you will likely be asked to provide references for your claims) or outright removed.
I think "go and try" is a dangerous answer to give to our critics. It is easy to falsify and it starts at the wrong end. Of course I could insert wrong information, but for what purpose? And what does that prove about wikipedia in general?
Wikipedia is based on the assumption that there are much more people adding valid information than people interested in deliberately inserting wrong information. I don't talk of vandalism, this is rather frequent but easily spotted, I talk of deliberately adding "hidden" mistakes. My claim is that there are not enough people who find such actions satisfying to make wikipedia in general unreliable as a source.
So please don't tell people "go and try" (they will suceed if they are halfway intelligent) but tell them: "most people just don't do it, that's why wikipedia works".
greetings, elian