Poll: Do you trust "Wikipedia"
- Thread starter DanielPowell33
- Start date
Agree completely, I would trust something Wikipedia says to be almost all the way unbiased, and the mainstream news to be more biased, except for maybe CNN.flailpsot said:
Usually yes, and I trust it as far as informal knowledge. For example, if my Maths course did essays (thank Gods we don't), then I wouldn't use it as a reference, but for informal knowledge gathering I do trust it. My reasoning being thus. Anything non-academic is likely to be unimportant (unless it's news, in which case I use the BBC website), and thus it won't matter too much if there are a few discrepancies as long as the general article is correct. Anything academic is only going to be written by people who understand the subject in question and thus is extremely likely to be correct, even if it is unintelligible to us mere mortals. And thus anything can be trusted on Wikipedia. The only problem is vandalism, which is only likely on the non-important stuff (anyone vandalising pages on quantum physics, for example, is simply sad and needs to get a life), so it's always worth checking other sources. But on the whole, I definitely trust Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a source. In fact, no encyclopedia can really be considered a source since they are little more than a concise summary of a larger group of facts. If you cite Wikipedia, you're an idiot and deserve the "F" you will get. That said, I've been known to take whole paragraphs out of Wikipedia articles and used them in my papers after heavy editing for tone and content (read: barely holds any resemblance to the original). So long as it's quoting reliable sources, it makes for a wonderful place to grab synopses for essays in your non-major courses when you're pressed for time or just can't think of a better way to put the information. I'd stick to the hard data if you're working on a thesis, though.
I trust it. Just think of it this way, any wiki article can be reviewed and edited, so while incorrect information (whether intentional or not) can be quickly filtered out. But other encyclopedias don't have that advatage, they have a board of editors, and they can be biased and the users can do nothing.
I use it for a lot of my homework and hey im predicted all A*. It must be doing something right. I always remember a few facts from the lesson (in detail) to compare to the written stuff on wikipedia. I only do this with facts (particularly dates, the ones most liable to random change by vandals) and if it all checks out then off i go. My teachers hate it but i really dont see the harm. Only twice have i seen a page that didnt match any of my remembered knowlage and made me move to books.
People who write wikipedia pages are people who are truly very interested in a subject, they are probably more inversed in that topic than anyone else you could find easily. My history teacher said that and he advises us to ignore all the negative comments about wikipedia and to judge for yourself that a page is accurate from your own knowlage.
Coincidently he is my best teacher.
People who write wikipedia pages are people who are truly very interested in a subject, they are probably more inversed in that topic than anyone else you could find easily. My history teacher said that and he advises us to ignore all the negative comments about wikipedia and to judge for yourself that a page is accurate from your own knowlage.
Coincidently he is my best teacher.
Its a good source of imformation if you check the citations (little numbers in superscript), they'll take you to the source so you can judge for yourself whether it is a good source or not.
The reliability depends on the user.
The reliability depends on the user.
I assigned a quick research paper to a group of 5th graders on a list of jazz musicians that they had to choose one from. It was only one paragraph long, but there was still a lot of bitching and moaning, some saying they were not even going to do the paper.
Firstly I told them DOING the paper was optional, but EVERYONE was getting a grade, so choose wisely. Secondly, I told them to start on Wikipedia for information, because that's what I'd be using to grade their paper.
Yes, Wikipedia works just fine.
Firstly I told them DOING the paper was optional, but EVERYONE was getting a grade, so choose wisely. Secondly, I told them to start on Wikipedia for information, because that's what I'd be using to grade their paper.
Yes, Wikipedia works just fine.
I read it on Wikipedia, so it MUST be true!
Seriously though, I do trust it, unless there's the odd sentence that says something questionable and isn't sourced. Though most of that stuff is usually removed by one of the many people who work on that site.
The only thing that scares me though is that there are so many people devoting their time to work on the site in many different ways that's difficult to comprehend, which makes you wonder if there's some conspiracy going on.
Seriously though, I do trust it, unless there's the odd sentence that says something questionable and isn't sourced. Though most of that stuff is usually removed by one of the many people who work on that site.
The only thing that scares me though is that there are so many people devoting their time to work on the site in many different ways that's difficult to comprehend, which makes you wonder if there's some conspiracy going on.