Poll: Do you use or trust Wikipedia?
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
I use it relatively often for day-to-day things and I'd say it's fairly trustworthy. If I really need extensive documentation on something though (for a school paper or whatever), I might start at Wikipedia looking for references but I'll most likely end up in the local library.
I trust it to some extent since there was a few times that there were a few "impropriate" information but those information get change soon afterward.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.htmlcaptainfluoxetine said:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/091106-ttr-wikipedia.html
The thing is, in order to get the full benefit and accuracy out of Wikipedia. I think this quote from the article sums it up well here:
"Well-sourced articles written according to Wikipedia guidelines should have citations listed at the bottom of each page, with links to other information sources. This means that savvy readers can use Wikipedia as an information hub to follow the link trail to more expert or authoritative websites, and students can likewise find useful primary sources through Wikipedia."
Most of the time, it's information is accurate. But just because it may be accurate doesn't mean that you should stop at Wikipedia. No matter how credible a source is, you can not rely on just that particular source and nothing else for information.
Although that study has been criticized: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm
I trust and love Wikipedia. I'm also a frequent editor since I'm guilty for not really having money to donate.
Depends on the topic. As I'm not english-speaker, I often check out what wikipedia says about things I'm for example writing about to see how the things I already know are put across in English.
If the article lists it's sources and so on, and seems trustworthy, I tend to trust it, but for important stuff I check the scientific journals and so on.
I usually chack the sources if it seems odd or dubious, or if I'm interested, but for something like when some movie came out, I tend to trust it.
If the article lists it's sources and so on, and seems trustworthy, I tend to trust it, but for important stuff I check the scientific journals and so on.
I usually chack the sources if it seems odd or dubious, or if I'm interested, but for something like when some movie came out, I tend to trust it.
Yes to both.
Obviously if I'm unsure as to the truth behind it, or I'm going to rely on the fact I will look it up elseware to check it agrees - but I would do that for anywhere else, so it's irrelevant.
Obviously if I'm unsure as to the truth behind it, or I'm going to rely on the fact I will look it up elseware to check it agrees - but I would do that for anywhere else, so it's irrelevant.
Pretty much. It's really useful if you want to know what years a band was active or about certain people. I wouldn't trust everything on there, but I wouldn't trust everything I read from anywhere. I love it when people act like Wikipedia is a website that just spreads false information, though. Have you ever tried to put false information on Wikipedia? Did you notice how fast it all got deleted? Yeah, you can go on there and change things, but they won't stay forever. If they stayed, I would say that it would look a bit more like Encyclopedia Dramatica.
I also like the fact that it's got pretty much everything on any given topic and also gives extra sources. It's good for research.
I also like the fact that it's got pretty much everything on any given topic and also gives extra sources. It's good for research.
I love Wikipedia. If I want to check something out, it's the first place I go. Unless it's something more specific then general knowledge.