Poll: Wikipedia

[Standby]

Pro-tip: It lists sources at the bottom for a reason.

 

[SilverStrike]

I once used it for some coursework I had to do, only a pages worth, about methodology for IT.
A mate of mine did exactly the same methodology, and used exactly the same page I did on wiki.
Teacher failed mine, and I began to question Wiki's integrity when he said that -everything- was wrong. He asked me where I got my sources "Uh.. the internet?" Which led to a priceless quote I will mock for many days. "Well the internet is wrong!" At this point I know he's not quite right. He's teaching IT. I ask where should I get my sources from. He said "Go to the library and read a book!" and dismissed me.

Remember that mate of mine? With exactly the same stuff as me? Yeah. He passed without issue.

I hope I never get that teacher again...

 

[Julianking93]

It's pretty accurate. When it isn't, the cyber nerds of the web are pretty quick to change it.

 

[Palademon]

I think it's pretty accurate but someone mustve been trollin' when I looked up castle crasher animals and the Bipolar bear had been titled "Bisexual bear"

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

It's as accurate as it will get on the internet. No source is ever 100% truthful so use it as a go to point and quote the sources it provides rather than the actual site.

 

[tehroc]

I have found the facts to be accurate but in some articales they are spun in a way which is misleading. Generally though I love Wikipedia. I can understand why teachers say it isn't a good information source but in the cases where teachers have said that it has been for things that an encyclopedia wouldn't be a good information source.

I think the reason a lot of schools don't allow Wikipedia as a source is the way a lot of students would be able to say "But Mickey Mouse was a close friend of Abraham Lincoln! It said so on Wikipedia! I added it myself!" Anybody could claim anything in an essay and just add it to Wikipedia to have a legitimate source.

That's why wikipedia posts footnotes. You dont quote wikipedia, you quote the source wikipedia cites.

 

[tunderball]

I voted 98% I used to study History and always found Wikipedia a good starting point, but it's problem I found was that it tries to give you the deffinative answer all the time and I'm sorry but nobody can be certain about things happening 1000 years ago.

 

[0a0x0e0]

My challenge to people who say that it isn't accurate is to show me a link to something that is false. My challenge has never been met successfully

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Teachers who say it isn't reliable because anyone can edit it are a bit clueless, it is moderated after all.

 

[Jonluw]

Other, and by other I mean most of what stands there is correct, but it might be wrong, and there is no way of knowing what is wrong and what isn't without checking other sources.

 

[Xaryn Mar]

I would say that it is mostly accurate. Somewhere around 80% if I had to give a number although I chose the 98% option since it was closest.

In some subjects wiki is 100% spot on and in some it is less then 60% but nevertheless in general it is reliable just don't quote it as a fact unless you also quote the sources for the article.

 

[Berserker119]

I trust it for the most part, but a couple of my friends had a conversation on one of the pages one time. It was interesting. It didn't stay for very long, though.

 

[Om Nom Nom]

Other - Properly cited pages (linked to actual academic studies and official material) are usually extremely accurate. Just don't trust anything with [sub][citation needed][/sub]. If the information you want is for a serious purpose, the citation links at the bottom of the page tend to go to credible sources.

 

[muckinscavitch]

For what I use it for, I can think about the info and sort of decide whether or not it is true or not. One of the biggest factors is the references. Wikipedia is no good for school, but the references used on wikipedia are great for school usually.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

I always say "Wikipedia and it's sources". If I am in any doubt I just check the sources and I have yet to be disappointed.

 

[standokan]

It's handy but its no source for making projects for school, believe me i got a 5(out of 10) because of wikipedia's wrong info, but it's my fault for being lazy i guess -.- .

 

[Saul B]

You hear it everywhere. "Wikipedia can be edited by any one", your teacher will tell you Wikipedia is not source material etc. But how accurate do you think Wikipedia is?

I would put myself in the second category. I believe Wikipedia is edited by people who care enough to be critical with scientific theories, history books and other source materials. How about you?

Well wikipedia uses secondary sources. I use wikipedia to link me to useful sources which I can then use as a proper source.

 

[DustyDrB]

Wikipedia is like a google of encyclopedias. It's a good way to find things.

I use it myself from time to time. The trick is, don't quote wikipedia, check the sources, and quote them.

This is the way I view it.
The thing about Wikipedia is that those who write the articles are often (over)passionate about the topic. You'll end up with an article that is easily 4x the length of a more scholarly encyclopedia. Yes, this often leads to more errors - or at least more opinions rather than facts - but the extra information is often helpful. Helpful, that is, as long as you follow the link to their source on the given information.

 

[Davey Woo]

Everything I've looked at on Wikipedia has been 100% accurate.
My college told us not to use Wikipedia, but then used Wikipedia pages as sources for most of our supporting documents.

 

[SpaceCop]

Careful now. Wikipedia is well known for being heavily biased and for obfuscating issues with liberal denial. I mean, how can I trust an online encyclopedia that doesn't have entries on Obamageddon or Counterexamples To Relativity?

That's why I use Conservapedia; the roiling circus of theocratic insanity and extremist rhetoric trustworthy encyclopedia.