Wikipedia 'Edit Wars': The Most Hotly Contested Topics

A behind-the-scenes look at the so-called edit wars on Wikipedia has revealed the topics people argue about the most across the globe. Not surprisingly, the winners are 'Religion and Politics'

Considering that Wikipedia is the result of mass collaboration, with essentially 40 million editors, back-and-forth editing — and even arguments — are bound to occur. But some topics on the site better resemble a battlefield than a publishing house, according to researchers. Overall, after religion and politics, the most controversial topics were countries and geographical places, followed by sex, gender and race-related topics.
Some subjects, such as Israel, were heavily debated in all the languages, and some topics were local to different language editions. On the French- and Czech-language Wikipedia sites, scientific topics were the most controversial, whereas sports were the hot topic on Spanish-language sites.

I think it is quite interesting to see what diferent nationalities argue most about, apparently Romanians argued most about musicians and Art, whilst japanese argue most about 'Manga' . The three most disputed topics on the English-language version of Wikipedia were about George W. Bush, anarchism and Muhammad. On the French-language Wikipedia site, the most controversial articles were about Ségolène Royal, UFOs and Jehovah's Witnesses. On the German-language site, Croatia is heavily disputed, followed by scientology and 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It doesnt really mention the Irish but im guessing we probably argue the most about the English or football

here's a link -

Link

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

That is kind of interesting.

Some people treat wikipedia like the its the Bible. Its actually just a bunch of people like you and me creating entries and linking sources.

While its supposed to be governed by "rules", there are a lot of biases and special interests at work.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

 

That is kind of interesting.

Some people treat wikipedia like the its the Bible. Its actually just a bunch of people like you and me creating entries and linking sources.

While its supposed to be governed by "rules", there are a lot of biases and special interests at work.

Actually,the Wiki, while not perfect, is a good source to start. They do a lot of referencing of qualified sources.
Still, they get plenty wrong..but for standard info that is more science than opinion, its a great reference point. Any proper research though starts with wiki only as a guide on where to start verses the end point as, as mentioned, they do get things wrong, skewed, and otherwise distorted in some areas.


___
As far as OPs, that's good. the more intelligent voices being heard, the closer to truth things become..so long as everyone is truly trying to use facts over agenda (obviously unlikely on some subjects)

Interesting graphic, but I'd honestly be more interested in seeing a list of the top most contested topics on Wikipedia.