User:Andrewa/if the rocket's gonna crash

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell:

Wikipedia does not replace more traditional reference works
We need both
But if you consult only one, Wikipedia is often the better one to choose

Just suppose you're building a rocket, and you need to know the atomic weight of mercury, and if you get it wrong then the rocket will crash and kill people. So you look it up.

You can look it up in a relevant data book, or you can look it up in Wikipedia. Those are the two that would occur to most people these days, I think.

If it's that important, consult both.

Because, if you consult only Wikipedia and the figure there is wrong, and the rocket crashes and kills people, your lawyer is likely to say, this is a lost cause, you've stuffed up badly and you're going to suffer for it. You are culpable.

If on the other hand, you consult only the data book and the figure there is wrong etc., then you may even get off scot-free, but you are even more culpable.

If you find that claim surprising or even ridiculous, you are not alone. Read on, and be very brave. We are all human.

Why the data book may be wrong

There may be a simple misprint. It happens. Or many other sources of error. They happen.

This will be corrected of course. But typically, only after many months.

And will your copy be corrected when it is? Is there even an errata and update service for the publication in question? Even if there is, do you subscribe (it's not free), and are the updates regularly applied when they do eventually arrive?

What can be done about it (not)

Not a lot. Use only data books that have an (expensive) update service. Spend more money on having a competent person apply them. I mean, rocket budgets are limitless, aren't they? Your bosses will support this as essential expenditure, won't they?

Or, don't rely on your own copy. Go to a major library. Or subscribe to an online data service. Again, your boss will gladly sign the cheque, won't they? Or they'll see it as good use of your time, won't they?

Better still, ask any pig that flies by.

Why Wikipedia may be wrong

We may have used an inaccurate data book ourselves. It happens.

Or we may have been vandalised. That happens too.

Or we may have made an innocent mistake. That happens too.

It's likely to be fixed within a few seconds. But it may not be. And for however long it takes, it will be wrong, and will be wrong for longer in various caches and mirrors. It happens.

What can be done about it

Lots and lots, and very quickly.

Read the edit history. If the data has changed, then look further.

Check the online references, which are likely to be free and reliable. If they're not there, look further. If they don't support the figure given, look further.

Better still, ask any intelligent five-year-old whether they study critical reading at school, and if they say "yes" (it's not yet universal but the best schools all teach it) then get them to show you how to use Wikipedia.

It will be worth it. And the rocket won't crash.

Or just Google it

That's the third thing that might occur to you.

And it will eventually give equally valid results to Wikipedia, just a lot more slowly.

You'll get many ghits (including Wikipedia). How to choose which ones? That problem has already been solved for you by Wikipedia editors. But if you have time to spare, by all means check up on us, and if you find an error, fix it!

And become a Wikipedian. Welcome! And thanks to you, then maybe somebody else's rocket won't crash either.