Poll: Wikipedia's reliability.

[cleverlymadeup]

Actually, I don't think it, they compared the number of innaccuracies when comparing the two but apparently the number of outright errors is much larger in wikipedia.

actually that's wrong, they did that with several articles on multiple occasions, britanica in a couple instances had more inaccuracies

Anyways, I don't use it because I have to check through all their sources to see if they are reliable or not. Its easier just to use well respected science journals and things where you can pretty much assume the information is accurate.

right and if you use britanica you don't also check thru all their sources or do you just take them as truth?

 

[Jharry5]

On the whole, i think it is, but there'll always be bits of info that slip through the net. The staff are human after all...

 

[Jamanticus]

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.

This, I think.

As others have said, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so it's very easy to check the veracity of each article by going directly to the sources it is based on.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Well for the most part it would seem a lot of the articles are written by experts, some of the subjects and the way they are eloquently expressed leads me to think that, many articles on subjects were written by experts on those subjects. I'm not saying all of wikipedia is written by some group of infallible super intelligent beings from space, but for the most part wiki is reliable, and some articles may be unquestionably so. I wouldn't be sure aboot pop-culture articles though...

"Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth"

 

[Alex_P]

As long as you understands how Wikipedia works, it's a good source of information.

The key thing to understand is that pages will be mostly accurate over time rather than right now, meaning that you should always check histories and talk pages when in doubt.

Some of the information is wrong but that's true of books and journal articles as well.

-- Alex

 

[ElephantGuts]

Wikipedia is amazing. I would trust it with my life. Mostly.

 

[Erana]

One of my professors, after reviewing the article himself, told us to read the article on Zionism.

 

[Cheesus333]

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.

#

Can you cite your source that he was 8?

...Irony

 

[vede]

I can't stand people who think that Wikipedia is the epitome of lies and fallacies. People say that they don't cite their sources, which they do. People say that anyone can edit it, but when someone edits it, it's usually something that's obviously wrong. Who would go on there and change George Washington's birth date by two months? That's dumb! Also, you can go back and look at every single version of it, between edits and such. Also, when it gets edited badly, it usually gets changed very quickly.

I've actually been told by a friend of mine, "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone so I will never trust anything on it at all."

Unfortunately, it was between classes, so I couldn't start up a debate. Damn you, five-minute passing periods!

 

[Solo508]

I've never had to correct myself after quoting wikipedia. It tends to be older people who doubt wikipedias reliabillity because they don't understand (as easily) how it works.

 

[qbert4ever]

I don't mistrust Wikipedia any more then I do any other source of information. After all, anybody can write a book. The only proof I have that France exists is that other people tell me so, but I've never seen it and for all I know it could just be one big lie. Do I think that? Not really, but it's not impossible. I figure, take any information from ANY source with a grain of salt, and you'll be ok.

 

[cikame]

I say yes, i pretty much take it at face value every time and i'm pretty happy with the information it supplies.
Whenever i say "i found out on the wiki" people always assume i'm wrong, and thats fine because one day i might be, but wiki's pretty reliable.

 

[axia777]

It is reliable as any source of information can be as independent academics regularly edit the articles held there. Open source information is proving to be a very good thing.

 

[GCM]

Needs a middle value. I say it's reliable, but you need to check other sources, including the citations given.
Personally, if something seems skewed, then it's usually pretty apparent. Watch out for citation neededs, weasel words, and the like that they will splatter for you.

 

[Alex_P]

I say it's reliable, but you need to check other sources, including the citations given.

That's all any "reliable source" is, though.

E.g. journal articles are crap unless you check the letters and other journal articles that reference it.

-- Alex

 

[cleverlymadeup]

1st point: Maybe my point wasn't clear. What I was trying to say was that more of the actual inaccuracies themselves were worse with wikipedia than with Britania (eg, britania may have got someones birth date a month wron wheras wiki may have got it 10 years wrong).

actually britanica is subject to the exact same glaring errors as wikipedia is, in the studies done, britanica was actually worse than wikipedia was in regards to things it got wrong

don't think that because it has a large corp funding it that britanica is any better, it just has more money

2nd point: I don't know where that conclusion came from my post. I don't actually recall stating anywhere that I actually used the encyclopedia, I said "science journals" by which I mean journals in which well published scientists share their work.

sad to say those aren't error free either, there's been more than once i've read where they either published errors or suppressed the publication of things that went against convention and turned out to be true

 

[the monopoly guy]

According to Wikipidia Pablo Picaso painted the Sistine Chapel.

 

[wewontdie11]

I wouldn't trust it for any serious research, but it's mostly alright for finding out the basics about things.

Although once I did see it claiming Bruce Campbell was dead.

 

[Zer_]

Overall, when comparing it to other encyclopedias, I think it is the most reliable. Britannica is updated only every year (right?). Wikipedia can have their errors fixed in an instant. But writing anything based only on an encyclopedia isn't the best of ideas to begin with.

 

[SmugFrog]

For the most part it is but if you really want the truth I believe you should follow the references.