Poll: Wikipedia

[Moriarty]

It is as accurate a encyclopedia can be. You can't trust any source to be 100% accurate, just because somebody took the time to print his "definitions" in a book doesn't mean he is more trustworthy than wikipedia.

 

[Estocavio]

Do this for me: Send me to a Wikipedia page that ISNT Accurate.

 

[Communist partisan]

Wikipedia is very accure but I prefered it than it was about 50/50 more fun than.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I just found this


"Reality is what the majority agrees on." That is what Wikipedia is.

no... you're not serious right? You don't actually believe that reality is what the majority of people believe it is? I'm going to assume that you were being facetious, and correct the statement for those of us who don't know what facetious means. 2 + 2 is not 5, no matter what percentage of people believe it is. Reality is reality, and it is not created by perception.

No, I do not believe the majority. What I am saying is that Wikipedia only says what the majority agrees on (ie. if everyone says that Colbert saved the elephants singlehandedly then that must be the truth). I agree reality is reality but, as I stated in another post, Wikipedia is only 70% accurate at best. Because, I do not trust all of their sources.

 

[Travis Higuet]

I just found this


"Reality is what the majority agrees on." That is what Wikipedia is.

no... you're not serious right? You don't actually believe that reality is what the majority of people believe it is? I'm going to assume that you were being facetious, and correct the statement for those of us who don't know what facetious means. 2 + 2 is not 5, no matter what percentage of people believe it is. Reality is reality, and it is not created by perception.

No, I do not believe the majority. What I am saying is that Wikipedia only says what the majority agrees on (ie. if everyone says that Colbert saved the elephants singlehandedly then that must be the truth). I agree reality is reality but, as I stated in another post, Wikipedia is only 70% accurate at best. Because, I do not trust all of their sources.

Seems to me like we are in 100% agreement on this topic. I just responded before watching the Colbert clip, and thus didn't realize you were repeating his sarcastic point, not trying to make your own.

 

[Hateren47]

The first two poll options are effectively the same. One says Wikipedia is right ALL OF THE TIME, and the other says Wikipedia is right AS OFTEN AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE RIGHT, SINCE NOT ALL INFORMATION IS PROVABLE. There should have been a 75% option. Wikipedia is right more often than not, but its also true that it can be edited by anyone. It is the encyclopedia of general consensus. So essentially anything that is generally believed to be true by the majority of people IS TRUE as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

In my opinion, if you believe that most of what's on Wikipedia is accurate, 75% would be really low considering that would make the other 25% inaccurate. I will admit that the question and the poll is worded a little imprecise and 92% would have have been closer to the statistical accuracy that I didn't know of at the time I made the poll. To me if Wikipedia was only 75% accurate it wouldn't be very accurate at all.

 

[Lord Honk]

I think, and this might be my childish naiveté speaking, for every dunce who, beknownst or unbeknownst to him, puts up false information, there's a person with dedication, information and time to waste who will correct it.
Also, articles that give you an abundance of sources are really the most reliable that you can find boiled down on one page. Tell me, before wikipedia and google, did you really search multiple sources for your homework? I sure didn't (always), I was happy with the encyclopedia we had. If it stood there, it was FACT xD

 

[Travis Higuet]

The first two poll options are effectively the same.

not at all, theres a world of difference between 100% and 98% its a sold difference of CAN or CANT, in this case 100% CANT be wrong while 98% CAN

I understand that there is a difference between 98, and 100. I get that. But that doesn't change the essential reliability of Wikipedia. Very few things are 100% accurate, and the 98% accurate option specifies that Wikipedia is accurate as often as possible. Essentially arguing that to be more accurate, wouldn't be possible. Therefore the 100% accurate, and the 98% accurate poll options are EFFECTIVELY the same. There should have been a 75% option, for those who believe that Wikipedia is right far more often than half the time, but also not research material quality of 98 to 100 percent.

 

[Travis Higuet]

The first two poll options are effectively the same. One says Wikipedia is right ALL OF THE TIME, and the other says Wikipedia is right AS OFTEN AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE RIGHT, SINCE NOT ALL INFORMATION IS PROVABLE. There should have been a 75% option. Wikipedia is right more often than not, but its also true that it can be edited by anyone. It is the encyclopedia of general consensus. So essentially anything that is generally believed to be true by the majority of people IS TRUE as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

In my opinion, if you believe that most of what's on Wikipedia is accurate, 75% would be really low considering that would make the other 25% inaccurate. I will admit that the question and the poll is worded a little imprecise and 92% would have have been closer to the statistical accuracy that I didn't know of at the time I made the poll. To me if Wikipedia was only 75% accurate it wouldn't be very accurate at all.

Well, the inaccuracies we are talking about aren't MAJOR stuff. Its not like I'd expect to go to a Wikipedia page about the start of the 2nd world war, and find that the general consensus is that Poland invaded New Zealand to begin the conflict. We're talking about minor mistakes, the kind that slip past the know it alls patrolling the stormy seas of Wikipedia correcting and updating information. Still though, perhaps 75% is unfair. I was just trying to pick a middle ground between right all the time, and right half the time. Maybe 85% would have been better. But thats as much as I'll give it.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

EXACTLY

That is why Wikipedia is an invaluable source even when writing papers for school.

 

[Hateren47]

Spoiler

The first two poll options are effectively the same. One says Wikipedia is right ALL OF THE TIME, and the other says Wikipedia is right AS OFTEN AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE RIGHT, SINCE NOT ALL INFORMATION IS PROVABLE. There should have been a 75% option. Wikipedia is right more often than not, but its also true that it can be edited by anyone. It is the encyclopedia of general consensus. So essentially anything that is generally believed to be true by the majority of people IS TRUE as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

In my opinion, if you believe that most of what's on Wikipedia is accurate, 75% would be really low considering that would make the other 25% inaccurate. I will admit that the question and the poll is worded a little imprecise and 92% would have have been closer to the statistical accuracy that I didn't know of at the time I made the poll. To me if Wikipedia was only 75% accurate it wouldn't be very accurate at all.

Well, the inaccuracies we are talking about aren't MAJOR stuff. Its not like I'd expect to go to a Wikipedia page about the start of the 2nd world war, and find that the general consensus is that Poland invaded New Zealand to begin the conflict. We're talking about minor mistakes, the kind that slip past the know it alls patrolling the stormy seas of Wikipedia correcting and updating information. Still though, perhaps 75% is unfair. I was just trying to pick a middle ground between right all the time, and right half the time. Maybe 85% would have been better. But thats as much as I'll give it.

I see where you are coming from.

I still think it's sounds too low which is why I didn't include it when I made the poll. I made the topic to see how much people trust Wikipedia and not how much each individual think the statistical accuracy is. It could have been worded better I agree.

I'm going to note you down under "Other". Take it or leave it, final offer.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

Most people don't bother Wikipedia, and the people who do are the kind of people who put obviously wrong stuff on so it gets changed back within ten minutes.

I just think it's bullshit when people say, "zOMg w1k1pedia is teh evils! wach me chang t3h articl3 on gravity 2 say 1t makes u go UUUUUP!1!!!!" And then you look back the next day and it's not there anymore.

And even if you don't trust the good Wiki itself, it has plenty of links to places you can trust without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Wardnath]

Someone should go on there and actually edit an article.

Would probably take only 5 minutes to have it edited back.

 

[Kagim]

Wikipedia is a good place to start learning about something...

However to simply quote Wikipedia is well... Bad form. Hell only reading up one source on anything worth researching is bad form. Trying writing a report in college or University with only one source. Your gonna get a fail. When doing a paper the most i use Wikipedia for is to get a list of sources to go check out quickly. I rarely ever actually read the article itself...

 

[Gilhelmi]

Do this for me: Send me to a Wikipedia page that ISNT Accurate.

In response I give you this guy


That is a problem. Oh someone created a wiki page about me but they will not let me edit it because they know more about my life then I do.

Anti-wiki I like that, that is what we need.

 

[Amphoteric]

Wikipedia is mostly accurate, I would never just use it as a source though.

 

[Amphoteric]

Do this for me: Send me to a Wikipedia page that ISNT Accurate.

In response I give you this guy


That is a problem. Oh someone created a wiki page about me but they will not let me edit it because they know more about my life then I do.

Anti-wiki I like that, that is what we need.

Is it possible for that guy to have less charisma and charm.

 

[TehIrishSoap]

It's Great! I'm Even Prone To Editing My Town Wikipedia's Page, Claiming It Descends Into Darkness Every Year For 30 Nights And It Hosts The World Ping-Pong Championships

 

[Reveras]

I usualy read it then go check the sources or just google stuff. It's best used as a "what's the name of that singer again ? I know his band but have no idea what his name is" tool.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Do this for me: Send me to a Wikipedia page that ISNT Accurate.

In response I give you this guy


That is a problem. Oh someone created a wiki page about me but they will not let me edit it because they know more about my life then I do.

Anti-wiki I like that, that is what we need.

Is it possible for that guy to have less charisma and charm.

It would be difficult to have less than this guy. Only reason I put it up was because he made my point for me.