Wikipedia

[philosopherqueen]

What do you really think of Wikipedia, is it a joke or an unseen tool?

[Aristoddler]

I thought of it as a great tool until Stephen Colbert tried to get the nation to change elephants into gods by editing Wiki to death.

You can no longer edit the page for elephants on Wiki because of Stephen Colbert.

I still see it as a useful tool as long as you cross reference everything you see on it.

[Vasska]

I use Wikipedia daily to look up things, but never really put all my trust in it.
Just like Aristoddler i found that Wikipedia is (to) prone to vandalism.

[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.

[Aristoddler]

Like I said, it's good to use to start a launching pad for research but other than that, it's not the most reliable source of info out there.
But it's a heck of a lot better than Ask Jeeves.

[Foldstein]

I think Vikipedia is a great project and I believe that one day Vikipedia will reach its aims. Don't forget, Vikipedia doesn't guarantee you about the content of the information which it gives you because it is a product of collective work.

[de_budding]

Both your comments suggest that there is a standard of knowledge the Wikipedia falls short of...

'one day Vikipedia will reach its aims'
'it's not the most reliable source '

What is it missing? The references are there to the 'official' opinions that people seem to prefer and if you insist on having information that requires no critical consideration I assume you don't read the papers or listen to any who can't offer citations when they are talking to you about a casual subject.

In history we do not regard propaganda as incorect or useless information because it is biased, we critically analyse it and work out in what ways it is biased and then deduce something unique from that. We can then see what messages Nazi Germany was forcing upon its citizens by recognising the propaganda as biased, this in turn can lead us towards insights into the motives and thinking of such leaders.

What makes knowledge 'reliable' anyways?

Dan.

[BMW]

I'd say that if ever knowledge is properly ordered and classified, the optimal way to treat it will be something far more ressembling a wiki than any other thing I know...

[Theaetetus]

The beauty of the Wikipedia is that it continually gets better. Users write, check, edit, and thus improve the quality of wikis. Rather than having "experts" write the encyclopedia those with a working knowledge of the information do. Thus--if nothing else--the potential is there for best possible encyclopedia.

[Deftil]

A study in 2005 suggested that Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate for "serious errors".

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.