Poll: Do you trust "Wikipedia"
- Thread starter DanielPowell33
- Start date
For most part, though if some information picks my eye as odd, controversial or such I at least check the discussion page to see if someone else has questioned it and what the response is.
Plus there are always sources and other sites about the subject listed.
Wikipedia is often mocked as an information source, but if you use it properly, it's as reliable as any, and most up to date.
Plus there are always sources and other sites about the subject listed.
Wikipedia is often mocked as an information source, but if you use it properly, it's as reliable as any, and most up to date.
It is actually very reliable. For any genuine research, you should rely more on the links to added sources it provides, rather than just the wiki article (if for no other reason this pads your sources listings). For general knowledge/curiosity, however, you can take the wiki article at face value in most cases, the key exception being controversial topics.
I would say yes. Most false info on wikipedia is almost immediately fixed by people called "Wikis". Wikis will fix problems.
But as others have said, use more than one source. ALWAYS
But as others have said, use more than one source. ALWAYS
Not completely if it is something really serious, but that is also why you should have multiple sources for information anyways. If it's something completely random and spur of the moment then yes.
yes it's pretty reliable, yes everyone can edit it but everyone seems to focus that people can put in false info and then dismiss the fact they can put in good info
I trust wikipedia if i need an overview of something. But as a resource for projects in school, i'd rather not use it. anyone can edit it, even though they catch most of them, there is that delay between when they catch it and when it is posted.
In short, I think wikipedia is better as a quick look into site.
In short, I think wikipedia is better as a quick look into site.
I trust it less than a peer-reviewed journal article and more than a random dude on the internet. It does bother me when I try to reference something from it on the internet and someone shouts that it isn't reliable. It may not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than RandomGuy69's unsourced stahatement tt he heard from some guy who did something like that in school. Lesson being, don't use it for your thesis (although it's references are fair game) and do use it for studying or learning.
It's very good for chemistry, has lots of easy to find chemical/physical properties.
Probably better for subjective fields like math/science and a little rougher on history or politics where the editors are more likely to have a bias.
It's very good for chemistry, has lots of easy to find chemical/physical properties.
Probably better for subjective fields like math/science and a little rougher on history or politics where the editors are more likely to have a bias.
I'd never trust it for something that really counts.
Video game realese dates; that's the kind of thing I'd trust it about.
Video game realese dates; that's the kind of thing I'd trust it about.
It used to have notes on things like poisonous mushrooms stating something like "Please do not use wikipedia to identify mushrooms because you might die." I don't see them anymore though.WayOutThere said:
Wikipedia is a lot more reliable than google dude. Wikipedia can be mediated by a community. Google can give you a few crazy people's blogs. Try searching google for proof of creationism. The things you find will be patently wrong.Donnyp said:
its good for finding the odd bit of obscure info. otherwise i dont relly trust it, i compare what it says to other sites.