Poll: Wikipedia

[Assassin Xaero]

For general stuff I want to know, I trust it. For research papers and stuff, I go there, find the info, then follow their sources.

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

Ahh... the Fox News of internet encyclopedias...

 

[Hateren47]

For general stuff I want to know, I trust it. For research papers and stuff, I go there, find the info, then follow their sources.

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

Ahh... the Fox News of internet encyclopedias...

It could be worse. [http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page] Although they make it clear that it's not to be taken very serious.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

for the most part its true. And i use it anyways and site somewhere else. But I did see that it said Hitler was over 200 years old once.

 

[technoted]

It gives a rough idea, but a lot of it is a load of crap.

 

[Verlander]

The polls a bit skewed, there should be a 70% or something. Wikipedia is about as accurate as any of the internet

Yeah I realise that and I hope you picked the "98%" or "other" option.

And indeed I did sir. I am an honourary "other" voter

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Nothing is ever 100% accurate, but it's certainly not the worst website like people believe. Say, have you ever edited a Wikipedia article? Do you remember how fast it got changed back? Plus it's got a ton of sources. I believe a lot of what I read, but you still have to skeptical and check the sources.

 

[DarkRyter]

Spoiler: Open!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00

I think Michael from the Office gives it to us like it is.

 

[Broady Brio]

It has to have citations of sorts to stay on Wikipedia. Or so I've heard.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I was researching a Biology paper, and apparently Emphysema "makes ur dick go blue".

Apart from that I've had no real problems with it, so I'm going for 98%

You never know. It could.

As for myself, I haven't found any issues so far, and I cross-referenced extensively with another [reputable] site for a History project.
Wouldn't trust it on its on in terms of exactitude, however. It's very useful for getting the general idea of something.

 

[Quid Plura]

When looking at stuff that isn't being debated, like the year of the Battle of Waterloo, it's accurate. But when looking at stuff like the Armenian genocide by the Turks, good luck finding reliable information on Wikipedia.

 

[Gilhelmi]

The polls a bit skewed, there should be a 70% or something. Wikipedia is about as accurate as any of the internet

I agree with Verlander 70% accurate is the best Wikipedia can hope for being a lot of sources are open to interpretation as to whether or not the sources they use are reliable. 70% sounds right.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

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.

Yep, anyone who doesn't check the sources is pretty gullible. But anyway, bias poll is biased.

100& or 98%? How about an option between 60-80% or so?

I trust it mostly. People actually do edit it. I just don't trust highly opinionated topics because people tend to bias those in their editing. IE - religious stuff.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It really just gathers information. So it's as accurate as a mix of all the major sources of information combined, really.

And besides, certain things, like ancient history, may never be truly accurate. Wikipedia just collects whatever other people say.

 

[tharglet]

By "other" I think it's less than 98% accurate but not as low as 50%.

One person I know corrected an article of a field he was an expert in (thus knew his stuff) and kept reverting his edits, despite him pointing out why he was right.

In the end, he gave up and made a sarcastic article on the subject on Uncyclopedia and left the guy to his reversions.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I just found this


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

 

[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.

 

[interspark]

100% any day, if i were to write on wikipedia that i invented sheep it would be corrected in a heartbeat!

 

[interspark]

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

 

[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.

It occurs to me upon watching the video *grins sheepishly* that you may have just been summing up Colbert's sarcastic point, not making one of your own. Sorry about that. I'll leave my response up though, and my edit. I'm against removing information

 

[Varanfan9]

Its 98% accurate most of the time. Some times people change things but they have people that change things that are wrong to their correct context. I use wikipedia all the time.