I use it a lot but not as a main reference. If I'm on the internet (which is most of the time) and I need to find out something, to Wikipedia!
Poll: Do you use Wikipedia?
- Thread starter OneBig Man
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While the information may or may not be reliable, I use it as a starting point. The links provided are usually legit, and I can expand my research from there. It may be better to pouring hundred of hours into books searching for interesting things you can include in your research paper, but it's easier if you just play link tag and get your information that way. Sometimes they point to other books, which is good as well.
I think wikipedia is a good information source. Sure, its not always reliable because anyone at any given time can change it, but pretty much all the REALLY important stuff is locked up so no one can edit them. Other than that, its mostly reliable, since all the sources used to gather information is mostly legit.
I reguarly look stuff up on Wikipedia since it's a fast and efficient process that 99% of the time gives me the information I need. I can understand why some might call it unreliable, but it's no more unreliable than a regular encyclopedia.
And even if we assume that it is unreliable, it's still a great starting point for research, since it'll provide you with a wide selection of search terms, links, refferences and give you with a understanding of what you're researching allowing you to better utulize other sources.
And even if we assume that it is unreliable, it's still a great starting point for research, since it'll provide you with a wide selection of search terms, links, refferences and give you with a understanding of what you're researching allowing you to better utulize other sources.
Wikipedia is at best a secondary reference tool to be used after you have a couple of good sources.
Wikipedia by itself is not a reference tool. When a good academic university, or even my local community college allow it's use as a reference tool, I'll call it one.
Wikipedia by itself is not a reference tool. When a good academic university, or even my local community college allow it's use as a reference tool, I'll call it one.
, atleast around here it will get you a great big fail.
Of course! how else would i find out about everything!?
Although it has a reputation as an unreliable source, the articles are actually getting better over time... due to some awesome editing system they have.
Although it has a reputation as an unreliable source, the articles are actually getting better over time... due to some awesome editing system they have.
Yeah I also like the fact that after a trip through wikipedia, dipshits suddenly turn into e-geniuses (what the fuck happened to hard work and actually studying?)...cleverlymadeup said:
Seriously I only use it for recreational, I refuse to use it in debate, and actual research due to not being a fully reliable source.
Yea, it is one of the first sites I go to when I want to know something. If someone doesn't believe me "because it's from Wikipedia", then I follow the references.
I sense a conspiracy theory coming on : P, although you have a point. I know alot of people who get their facts wrong because they have read it off the internet where as I can pull out a book that proves them wrong.Rutawitz said:
I normally go straight to wikipedia, read the introduction to get an idea then search around the net and look for common information, so then I know it is true. Too many times have I visited a website and its 'facts' have been wrong.
There's a big difference between using Wikipedia and using it as your (main) source of information and point of reference. I do use Wikipedia but I rarely use it as a point of reference when taking a stand or making a claim. I always check my sources [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.128113].
It's not so much a conspiracy as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It has happened so many times that a journal took information from Wikipedia and printed it in an article, after which the Wikipedia article stated said journal as a source for the information. It's like the perfect information crime.SeventySeven said:
There is a critical thinking rule about something like that and it goes likeRutawitz said:
"Never fully believe a statement, but never fully disregard it either."
gaah, a loop. My teachers have always told me to go to wikipedia and use the references for information, however I never liked the idea for that reason and also you can find a perfectly decent website normally.woem said:
I geuss also the whole 'edited by people' thing would cause a lot of problems too.
People like to think they know more than the actually know.
Er.asinann said:
Wikipedia is, by virtue of being an encyclopedia, a reference tool, irrespective of what 'good academic universities' (whatever that may mean) decide. The information contained within is consolidated from a variety of sources which, most often, sit humbly at the bottom of the page.
It's a bunch of information crammed into one place. Some of it's good, some of it's bad - but its left up to you as the researcher to assess its credibility by investigating the cited source. If you can't do that, you don't know how to research to begin with.
That's always been my response to claims that Wiki is not reliable. Guaranteed, if something in Wiki is wrong, there will be ten people who will rise up and correct it almost immediately.MaxTheReaper said:
And, of course, there are the pages with lock disclaimers because people have vandalized them. Those become the most closely scrutinized articles of all.