Poll: Wikipedia's reliability.

[bad rider]

This question jumps into my head almost every time I look at forum.

Is Wikipedia reliable?

I really wouldn't be suprised if the majority of topics on this site has had someone go through wikipedia first. This isn't to say i haven't but i try to get credibility by checking where people source their infomation. But often i can't be asked and take it at face value as i am sure most of us do. Anyway this debate must have occured many a time but i would like to see how those who use it feel.
So is wikipedia reliable?

Couple of links to the topic at hand (could be useful only did a quick search): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Oh yeah, don't ask for a maybe option on poll, as i would rather see which extreme we tend to lean against.

 

[Caliostro]

Overall, yes. Wikipedia has staff to constantly clean up articles and backs up most of their database in case it needs replacing after a major "attack". However, some stuff gets through, they're only human.

Wanna know if the article you're reading in particular is reliable: Check the sources.


It's that simple.

 

[PureChaos]

on the whole, it is reliable. ive not yet seen something which is inaccurate.

 

[curlycrouton]

Yes it is. For example, I edited an article on the Pryamids of Giza, saying that it was built by ant-men. It was deleted straight away.

 

[Syntax Error]

It is reliable. Problem is, the internet is not exactly accepted as a primary source of information just yet, documentary requirements in my college actually say to NOT use websites for bibliographical references (the Internet in general, not just wikipedia). It basically says that information on the web is not to be trusted, because "anyone can edit it". The problem here is that, as stated above, wikipedia has a team to clean up messes and inaccuracies.

If I had to know something about some other thing quickly, I go to wikipedia as opposed to using our trusty Google.

Edit:

Yes it is. For example, I edited an article on the Pryamids of Giza, saying that it was built by ant-men. It was deleted straight away.

See if you did this in Uncyclopedia, you'd at least get a laugh at the whole thing.

 

[FarleShadow]

I doubt it, the idea has merits, but like every human endevour ever they manage to get some idiots in places of power and fuck everything up.

Go look up Wikigroaning and report back. seriously.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Officailly for research its only allowed to be using as a jumping off point so I'm going to say no. Its kind of funny that something thats so facist about having to have realiable sources isn't considered a reliable source itself by the wider world.

 

[Syntax Error]

Remember that there's a warning when articles or sections of articles that warn the reader that no citations or sources were stated. For actual research, I go to a page then visit the sources to get what I need.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Yes, in general wiki is reliable. don't rely on it solely (never use one source for any kind of research), but generally it makes a good starting point for further reading.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Usually yes. And there's no better source for information on everything. Wikipedia in English is the largest encyclopedia in existence (by number of articles).

 

[Sixties Spidey]

for the most part, yeah it is. The only wrong thing i've seen from it was a couple years back some 8 year old **** edited the PSP article to make it say PlayShitty Portable. Other than that... Nope. It's an accurate source of information.

 

[Spacelord]

Yes, in general wiki is reliable. don't rely on it solely (never use one source for any kind of research), but generally it makes a good starting point for further reading.

This. Even if the wikipedia article is pretty extensive, you should always cross-reference it.

Also, I'd like to add that some articles are more reliable than others based on topic: an academic topic usually has so many contributors, any inaccuracies are usually filtered out by the time you read it. Occasional vandalism aside, these articles are usually quite accurate.

Then, on the other hand, if you're looking up articles about popular culture, you're bound to find outright fabrications - sometimes quite humorous. For instance, I now know that the lead singer from Clutch has a 'totally sweet beard'.

 

[sheic99]

This is something my 12 grade English teacher told me.

Wikipedia is good place to get an idea about what you are researching, but it can not be used as a source for a bibliography.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

actually wikipedia is as accurate, if not more, than the encyclopedia britanica

with it's openess to edit and change it has found a strange medium where it ends up being correct. there has been one or two cases where the person an article is about has edited their own wikipedia entry only to have it "corrected". the funny part is they were making it more truthful

 

[sirdanrhodes]

With people like me there, no!

 

[ace_of_something]

people can vandalize it. But you could say the same about books at the library. A week ago I looked up Taekwondo and someone had changed every instance of Tae to read "Gay"

 

[Melaisis]

Is it updated frequently? Yes.
Have I seen errors in the past? A few.
Are the sources reliable? Mostly.
Does it have a comprehensive history on everything nerd-culture related but lacks a little in other subjects? Pretty much.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Yes. It tells you when a source isn't quoted, so you know when to be dubious and check. There also seems to be at least an adequate form of moderating, so you can't create/edit a page about nonsense. Come to think of it, "Nonsense" is more often than not the quoted reason why my pages on the Zombie Uprising of 1402 are rejected.

 

[Archaeology Hat]

It is reliable. Problem is, the internet is not exactly accepted as a primary source of information just yet, documentary requirements in my college actually say to NOT use websites for bibliographical references (the Internet in general, not just wikipedia).

The university of york allows Websites as academic citation, especially if its a respected academic web-journal (often the web version of a print publication) but also for other sites. Of course they dislike it if you only use internet sources but thats mainly because it shows a great lack of effort in your work.

The only exception is Wikipedia and other "Wiki" sites, as they, while useful for a general outline often lack important or relevant information. Following the Wikipedia sources however does tend to yield results. Along side this, Wikipedia might mainly be reliable but then, I managed to fake a scottish town on it and this no existant settlement continued to have an article for about 3 weeks.

 

[Ophiuchus]

My university forbids us using Wikipedia as a direct reference but encourages us to use it as a means of finding other references.

My view is that, while articles on certain things may be vandalised or badly written, articles on things relevant to my degree are far less likely to be, so I'll tend to trust them. Generally speaking though, you can find the same facts elsewhere so it's probably easier in the long run to go straight for textbooks and peer-reviewed journals and just use Wikipedia to check facts or for a "layman's terms" explanation if the textbooks start to waffle too much.