Poll: Do you trust "Wikipedia"

[obliterate]

Well mostly...No...I know this might sound stupid but I search it mostly for games and 2 of my friends like editing any game article...they hate games (yes they're fagots)and that's why they like editing the game articles...And if I wanna find something out about a game I watch a review on zero punctuation and on youtube

 

[rokkolpo]

youre right that,s actually quite ''funny'':b

 

[happysock]

No No and No, If your going to use wikipedia at least check it with other website information, many articles I have looked at (and used) have been wrong.

 

[rokkolpo]

awesome avatar, RICHARD, as a matter of fact i,m gonna listen to his song right now.

 

[happysock]

No X 1,000,000

I don't like it. Every time someone says lets Check wikipedia to see whos right i just assume im right and won't allow it. Now if they say lets use google and several sites as references then im down but not Wiki.

yeah and well all know what assuming does

as for google being more reliable, it's not, wikipedia has been proven to be as accurate or more accurate than "reliable" sources of information such as the encyclopedia britanica

the fact is that the more people that can look and edit something, the more truth you actually get.

I'd love to see the proof that it's more accurate

 

[TheGreenGrasshopper]

It's the most reliable site on the internet so far ( that holds usefull info ), but is it even possible to be sure that an expert checked every page. For all we know they might just type something and everyone agrees.
Still I think it's reliable.

 

[barryween]

I use it, usually people don't have any reason to lie on there, and when they do it's something like:
"DUR HUR SUVAGE DRUGAN RIPZ OFF OF DA HULCK!!!!1!1!1!@!!!2!!2"
and then you can tel it's a lie

 

[Britisheagle]

Most of the time with a few exceptions. School work would be so drab and a hell of a lot more difficult without it

 

[internutt]

As a Student I am legally bound to not cite Wikipedia in any of my essays, or face failing my course.

Examples of why Wikipedia should not be trusted:

Anyone with bias can edit any page. They can change anything about existing articles, add spelling errors and even remove a word or two from a sentence, giving it an entirely different meaning. The website just isn't as perfect as say a REAL encyclopedia.

 

[Jedoro]

Proper Wikipedia pages are very good research sources, since they are required to cite their own when writing the page. So, if they do their job right, Wikipedia is a good place to start for any kind of research.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Yes, but not quite so much on pages about living people or the recently deceased.

 

[Firebolt227]

Yes, one of my friends did a test on Wikipedia, he edited a page to have false information on it a waited until it was changed back to the correct information. 45 seconds was all it took.

 

[Brown Cap]

4 Reasons why I dont trust Wikipedia -

1. Theres a page that claims my English teacher once did a movie with Tom Cruise
2. Theres a page that claims the holocaust never existed
3. Theres a page that claims Stephen Colbert was the original Bassist for the Grateful Dead
4. Theres a page that cliams Led Zeppelin was once named "The Yardbirds" -Which actually only had one member from Led, Jimmy Paige, in the earlier years-

 

[Chrinik]

It´s a good way to start a research, but a friend of mine who´s class all used wikipedia was being an wisecrack and edited the article between everyones turn, so all of his classmates came up with different years for a specific event, so the system can be exploited.

If you serriously want to research stuff, it´s pretty good to give you keyphrases to further investigate into but serriously, it´s like reading a book about, say, the Vietnam War by some veteran, so filled with personal bias that when uncheckt just gives a pretty onesided view...

 

[cleverlymadeup]

No X 1,000,000

I don't like it. Every time someone says lets Check wikipedia to see whos right i just assume im right and won't allow it. Now if they say lets use google and several sites as references then im down but not Wiki.

yeah and well all know what assuming does

as for google being more reliable, it's not, wikipedia has been proven to be as accurate or more accurate than "reliable" sources of information such as the encyclopedia britanica

the fact is that the more people that can look and edit something, the more truth you actually get.

I'd love to see the proof that it's more accurate

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844

http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/2005/12/comparing_wikipedia_and_britan_1.html

there's tons more just look it up on google, wikipedia is as accurate or more accurate than britanica, simply because people can edit it

 

[happysock]

No X 1,000,000

I don't like it. Every time someone says lets Check wikipedia to see whos right i just assume im right and won't allow it. Now if they say lets use google and several sites as references then im down but not Wiki.

yeah and well all know what assuming does

as for google being more reliable, it's not, wikipedia has been proven to be as accurate or more accurate than "reliable" sources of information such as the encyclopedia britanica

the fact is that the more people that can look and edit something, the more truth you actually get.

I'd love to see the proof that it's more accurate

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844

http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/2005/12/comparing_wikipedia_and_britan_1.html

there's tons more just look it up on google, wikipedia is as accurate or more accurate than britanica, simply because people can edit it

Meh i'd rather stick to good old books

 

[Micklet]

It depends on the topic your looking for, I donate money every year because if it wasnt for wiki I wouldnt have a degree. It wasnt my only source for things, but it can point you in the right direction and give you good synopsis on topics, you just have to know what to look for. Look at the reference section used for your topic at the bottom of the page, and see if there accredited sources, look them up yourself, its always worked for me.

 

[sln333]

I rely on it 99.9% of the time. The one time I knew it was fake info was for the first GTA game. The article was edited by somebody who felt like using all the expletives they've learned. I noticed the next day it had been changed. So, Wikipedia can be trusted. If you notice something is wrong you can fix it yourself.

 

[nettkenneth]

i don't trust it with my life but it's good reading anyway

 

[andrat]

Yes. Also, I read somewhere that a new color filter is going to be used to show how reliable and old said text is on the site/