Poll: Wikipedia

[Naeo]

News article just the other day that I read said that when compared to encyclopedias like Britannica, which had something like a 95%+ accuracy (I don't remember if they discussed methodology, but it might have just been comparison to other encyclopedias. I think they mentioned two or three others), Wikipedia had about 85% accuracy.

Personally, I use it as a starting point whenever I need to do a research paper or the like- read the Wikipedia entry to get an idea of what I need to be looking for (e.g., major moments in, say, William Faulkner's life, or important factors in the outbreak of (war of your choosing here)), and usually the sources at the bottom are fairly reliable. But I never quote/cite Wikipedia because A) my teachers would not count that as a source and probably make everything I cited from it count as uncited evidence, and B) whatever I quote might not be there a week later or whenever the teacher is checking quotes/sources, and quoting something that's not there or if the quote isn't the wording used because someone changed it then that looks bad.

By and large though I believe it's fairly reliable, but not a good place to do serious research.

EDIT: Here's a few links on the subject.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm (basically same story as above)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm (criticism of the study)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (dohohohoho see what I did there?)
Can't find the article I read that mentioned 85% though.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

The key is to never use just one or two sources to find out about a subject. I did a paper on the Cuban Missle Crisis and IIRC, I used about 20 different sources and about 1/2 of them varied in minor details.

Wikipedia was one of the sources, actually my first one to get just an overview of it, then I followed its sources and then the sources from those. It was a pain in the ass, but I got the highest grade of any of my profs. classes and he used my paper as an example of using sources to get to the facts.

 

[gl1koz3]

I haven't even encountered any of those "huge nonsense" topics there. Must be that scientific material is less prone to some idiots' dirty fantasies.

 

[YonderTunic]

I often use wikipedia as a starting point for any research projects, however after I've used the more 'credible' sites, it has always been exactly what wikipedia told me anyways.

I'm sure there's got to be some things that aren't totally accurate, but I've found the vast majority IS right.

 

[therookie95]

I use it mostly when i need help with a game or something, but I find it to be typically accurate

 

[PayneTrayne]

Wikipedia is great in the macrodetails, not so much in the microdetails. It's a phenomenal starting point, but if it's your only source, you're shooting yourself in the dick.

 

[Hairetos]

Wikipedia leaves a lot of the accuracy to be determined by the user, guided by nice flag bars at the top of the page that indicate possible issues. In most reputable pages, there are footnote citations for reference and pages lacking these get a nice flag bar epitaph marking their inaccuracy.

The reader is given a lot of responsibility for determining the accuracy of the claims, and that's why I consider Wikipedia to be reliable to a moderately intelligent user. As to the objective accuracy of the site based on number of accurate pages, that's impossible to determine.

It's a great source if you have no prior knowledge about something, as other users have stated.

 

[HerrBobo]

It's a good starting point.

I agree with this.

I voted other. Some stuff like, I dunno, places, names, (some) history, films, it does quite well. Thats were I would give it 98%. Like if I'm thinking of some event, and I'm like; "Was it is 1534 or 1634?" I go there and it says 1634, I'll accept it.

However, if you're talking about something like, I dunno, philosophy, or other in dept therorys, then steer clear.

 

[ArMartinez02]

i love wiki but its dangerous, u never know what u gunna ended up catching at the end, either facts or lies, but i still love it (^_^)

 

[cheese_wizington]

The poll isn't very befitting, why do we only get three options of percentage with two of them within two percent of eachother?

It's a nice thing to use for quick info and movie summaries in my opinion.

 

[Wintermoot]

98% its not the exact thruth but it has a core of thruth

 

[Travis Higuet]

Someone should go on there and actually edit an article.

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

You are probably right, if your edit is obviously ridiculous. If I go in there and change the article on Elvis, to say that he was signing autographs outside my local grocery store yesterday, then yeah, somebody would be all over that. But what if I changed the article to say that he had one more number one single than he actually had? Or if I changed it to say that he got married one year earlier than he actually did. Do you see how information there can be inaccurate without being obviously ridiculous? It is an encyclopedia of general consensus, it is inherently impossible for it to be consistently accurate.

 

[snowman6251]

I have only ever once encountered an issue with wikipedia.

I needed to look up a specific battle for a report regarding WW2 and the wiki page was blatantly vandalized.

From memory it went something like

"On February 31st General Patton sent his army of Panzers behind enemy lines to locate the Nazi Overlord and cut his dick off"

but then like that for the whole history of the battle.

I found another source.

 

[zhoominator]

There aren't too many accuracies as such, but I wouldn't look up anything there to construct a detailed historical/political/religious argument (I mean like a detailed one from an essay or something), some of the articles do have a slant of bias.

I've also been told by a friend that looking up religion on the internet is useless (he says that stuff on Islam can be very unreliable written by Christians/atheists who think they understand what it is).

Overall, it's good for basic info. Check for citations. They may or may not be reliable (you know what the internet's like). It's a pretty good tool though.

 

[Estocavio]

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.

That is a flaw indeed, though the information on the page was still accurate, only not put as he would have liked it.