Wikipedia

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Deftil

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can count on wikipedia information on how reliabel wikipedia is!

Overall, it seems fairly reliable and it's an extremely convenient and handy tool. It's constantly updated which is a great feature of it. Something interesting happens one day, it's recorded in wikipedia the next day. Amazing diversity of information there as well.

Within 16 hours of the release of Harry Potter book 7 (Deadly Hallows) a 7 page Wikipedia page was added detailing the book in great detail and all other forms of information. People at Wikipedia sometimes are crazy.

[Aedes]

If you can't tolerate errors, then the only reference you can count on is primary source material. And if you're suspect of a topic review like Wikipedia, you can always use other reviews to corroborate it.

Wikipedia is convenient and comprehensive. I am not going to use it for something that I need to know professionally, but it's perfectly fine for things that interest me.

[Didymos Thomas]

That's my feeling about Wikipedia. I can browse other online resources - and there are many. Wikipedia is, at the very least, a great place to start as a hobbyist.

[TheRedMenace]

I believe it's a reliable source. If you change anything to false it will be checked and if found false changed back. It gives all the sources to where they found it and thus is all true.


But I do love going to the Korean War site and everytime it says America lost or it was the only war we lost I say IT WAS A TIE!!! haha. They eventually locked it though.

[Poseidon]

I prefer google and yahoo.
They have a more diverse set of opinions, even if proportionally, the false info is greater.
Ultimately you have to decide if something is logical, so a resource that is too accurate is more likely to get you believing it when it is wrong.

The best way to tell a lie is to surround it with truth.

[jgweed]

If the articles and entries are taken with care, Wikipedia serves as a useful source for general knowledge. Now that there are more controls in place in the writing and editing process, the chances for errors (from many people including often contradictory information) and purposeful disfigurement have been reduced.

The discussions behind many of the major articles are transparent and at the same time there for the curious or the serious researcher to review.

However, because the entries are works in progress, one can never be sure (unless one has some prior knowledge about the subject) the entry's current state and whether or not it has been reviewed and developed sufficiently to warrant consideration as a "neutral" and acceptable discussion.

The continued self-criticism has been extremely beneficial and has drastically improved the quality and reliability of Wikipedia's centents.An important example may be read by following the link below:

Neutral point of view--draft - Meta

[Aphoric]

Originally Posted by de_budding

It is a tool, just one that needs another tool in order to be useful- like a nail needs a hammer any wiki needs critical consideration when being read. There are plenty of references and citations and if there isn’t any or very few there will be a warning at the top of the article, also a warning is issued if any one suggests the content maybe misleading, out of context etc.

Dan.

decree.

My med-micro teach won't let us use wikipedia as a source when researching articles because it's not credible. IMO, it's plenty credible as long as one can discern whether a certain fact is reliable based on whether it's been cited or not.

[Khethil]

Wikipedia annoys me, but I can't deny it (as a source) has value. I do have concerns about its credibility at times, but information on which I'm going to act - or invest - gets verified from external sources. So yea; for what it is, it's good.

... not sure why it annoys me; perhaps the old school coming out? Prejudice? Hmm

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Wikipedia annoys me, but I can't deny it (as a source) has value. I do have concerns about its credibility at times, but information on which I'm going to act - or invest - gets verified from external sources. So yea; for what it is, it's good.

... not sure why it annoys me; perhaps the old school coming out? Prejudice? Hmm

The reason why Wikipedia can rag on my nerves is because it is another tool that helps reduce meaningful human contact. One upon a time people had to go to libraries thus increasing their chances of sharing a moment with fellow humans. Sure it is convenient, but at some people convenience becomes a problem.

[Poseidon]

Originally Posted by Aphoric

decree.

My med-micro teach won't let us use wikipedia as a source when researching articles because it's not credible. IMO, it's plenty credible as long as one can discern whether a certain fact is reliable based on whether it's been cited or not.

pft

Thats just plainly wrong.
How can anyone decide that an entire resource cannot be used? Sounds like that person has a very narrow way of thinking. A critical analysis of a wrong point of view is the only way of getting a better point of view.

No resource is error proof.