Is Wikipedia Ever Wrong?

[Flamingpenguin]

Hmm... I usually trust it. The admins are really quite good at catching errors and false edits, and I've never been steered wrong by it. I would say it's right at least 95% of the time. And once [Seriously don't quote me on this one] I heard someone say it consistently averaged more correct than Encyclopedia Britannica, but that was a year or two back, and just something I heard them say. But I'd believe it.

I still think teachers should let us students use it.

My history teacher puts entries into it and fully advocates its use. Best history teacher ever.

Lucky bastard. I always end up on some site that clearly isn't anywhere near as legit just because "anyone can edit wikipedia".

 

[cheese_wizington]

I use it all of the time for lots of things. The most important pages are usually locked for edits.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Wikipedia is extremely accurate. So I've heard, statistical studies have put it about 5% more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica or something like that. I don't know for sure about that, but I do know that it is a very useful. To me, vandals don't count as incorrect information. Incorrect in those terms, for me, at least, means that a fact that is a legitimate part of article is flawed. Also, controversial pages, like Adolf Hitler, I have heard cannot be edited by anyone, which is a plus.

 

[Schlem Asfg]

Wikipedia is a forum where everyone can post. It might very well be wrong.

But Wikipedia too have admins, which searches for errors.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

I personally use it as my go-to source...

Please tell me that you don't use it as your "go-to" source for academic purposes?

Honestly, yes, but at a GCSE level I'm not too sure it matters.

 

[darkfire613]

I'll see if I can find the source, but there was a study that showed that Wikipedia had, overall, fewer errors than a conventional encyclopedia. Also, because it can be edited by anybody, it is often far more up-to-date than a print encyclopedia, which can take years to get into circulation, by which time some of its information may be inaccurate. I use Wikipedia as a starting source for research, and follow the sources to find more in-depth information.

EDIT: It's a few years old, but here's the source: http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

 

[Vianyte]

Whenever I want to find out something, the first place I go is Wikipedia. I've noticed some silly or opinionated things written(like the Game King section in the handheld game consoles article) but everything else appears to be correct. I've never read an article that I had noticed that got a fact wrong.

 

[hopeneverdies]

It's trustworthy enough. Any incorrect changes that are found are removed and most people check for sources on new edits.

When someone found out that Warren G. Harding's middle name was changed to "Gangsta", it was promptly reversed and locked.
After Colbert edited the page on elephants, same thing.

 

[mjc0961]

I personally use it as my go-to source of information, and when I go to other sites to check some other facts they always seem to agree with Wikipedia.

That's why I never bother with Wikipedia for anything serious: To be sure that it's right, you have to check the sources, and if you do that, you might as well not have gone to Wikipedia in the first place.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

The only thing I've ever found to be wrong on Wikipedia was something on an article relating to Islam.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

I have yet to find any faulty information on there. Maybe it is because there is the least amount of dicks editing the articles. And also maybe because when that does happen, somebody quickly restores order within the article. So there is a balance.

 

[Chardan]

I'm sure Hippo was in the listing of Jobs a while back, along with the name of someone I went to school with. But yeah, I trust Wikipedia, and use it to spend my nights reading about Space and the universe and what-not. I don't really think people would be bothered to put wrong information on a page about Jupiter's history.

 

[lacktheknack]

They've really tightened it, edits can't go through right away until they've been reviewed by several people.

Before they did that, though... "I like to shit on eggs."

'Nuff said.

 

[Johnmw]

When I was at high school Wiki listed my friend Charlie as the headmaster of our rival school plus some interesting edits to their sporting team.... For this reason my university doesn't accept it as a source and will mark you down for citing it in essays.

 

[oppp7]

I've been using Wikipedia for years now, and I'd say that you should take everything with a grain of salt and ignore everything that isn't cited.

 

[cerebus23]

Obscure, technical stuff is usually pretty solid, but pop and other popular stuff is more prone to lulz edits.

bottom line always check the listed sources or look for other webpages that have similar info and confirm or refute wiki info. wiki might be the quickest to find and top of the search engines but there is tons of info from all kinda sources on any given topic. and the local library can help also.

 

[xHipaboo420x]

Check the page's discussion forum. If there's doubt over the veracity, you'll find it there.

 

[Hunter6475]

Wikipedia can be wrong or right depending on who the editor is. As for anyone can edit it, ya I had a friend and a teacher who used to write stuff for wikipedia...so ya.

 

[child of lileth]

I've seen random stuff wrong on there at least 6 different times over the years. I don't use it for anything important, but it's kinda funny to find little things here and there wrong when I do look up random things.

 

[RJ Dalton]

It honestly depends on the page. Wikipedia is often off in minor details, and it rarely goes into great detail about any subject, but on the whole, it's a great place to get a rough idea of the research.