Oh, and by the way; of course your school won't acknowledge that Wikipedia generally is reliable; if they were to do that all the students would make up stuff, put it on Wikipedia and then insist that they had a source for their statements.
Wikipedia's Accuracy
- Thread starter oppp7
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, I would like to add another story that is somewhat relevant:
A while ago, somebody here in germany discovered that the rhine (no idea how you english-folk spell that, but I mean the river between france and germany) was 50 kilometers longer than everybody thougth. The reason for this is that there has been a mistake in some ancient book about the river where people copied that number from. The copied number was copied again, and so on. Nobody ever tried to check weahter or not it was accuarate, even with satellites around.
That's were trusting in sources can get you.
A while ago, somebody here in germany discovered that the rhine (no idea how you english-folk spell that, but I mean the river between france and germany) was 50 kilometers longer than everybody thougth. The reason for this is that there has been a mistake in some ancient book about the river where people copied that number from. The copied number was copied again, and so on. Nobody ever tried to check weahter or not it was accuarate, even with satellites around.
That's were trusting in sources can get you.
I'd never put 100% faith in something I've read there, but the fact that all edits and submissions need to be verified and sources need to be stated gives me a lot of confidence.
I've hardly ever noticed false info on Wikipedia unless it's someone trolling the page like when I was last on the "Lamb of God" page that read...
Other than that, it's usually pretty accurate but if it isn't, it's usually fixed pretty quickly.
Generally accurate and well maintained.
However you understand the hesitation schools have to accept it when you see "Robin Hood was a famous gay" as part of the article of the charactr.
However you understand the hesitation schools have to accept it when you see "Robin Hood was a famous gay" as part of the article of the charactr.
Pretty much what has been said before, pretty reliable with the exception of things that are obviously untrue because someone is just fucking around. Also it's only accurate when it supports your claim apparently...
Wikipedia is basically a collection of sources that back up the articles in it. So no, you can't use wikipedia.org, BUT you can use the sources a wikipedia article has cited.
As a former HS Journalist, we were told to never quote Wikipedia directly unless there was a source behind the statement.
However, A lot of it is very accurate, and the staff who maintains the site holds themselves to the Nth degree. Some things get through, but there are at least 3-4 people on it before it becomes a problem.
However, A lot of it is very accurate, and the staff who maintains the site holds themselves to the Nth degree. Some things get through, but there are at least 3-4 people on it before it becomes a problem.
there was only one time where i found something false on wiki and it was pretty obvious. i was doing a project on napoleon in gr11 and i wanted a list og his battles, and in that list there was the battle of F*** you right now
Well, I've found Wikipedia to be fairly accurate with most things, and my college actually allows me to use Wiki for references. Which is good, because I mostly go to Wikipedia for things.
That said, however, it is often quite apparent when something has been edited for the lulz. I once read an article on the Third Reich for a history paper, and it mentioned something about Hitler being the top gorilla who went to war because he ran out of bananas or something ridiculous like that.
I also read an article about genetics for my Animal Management course and about halfway through a paragraph it cut out and read 'I ATE AVRIL LAVINGE'S ASS'. So I think that bit might have been edited. I may be wrong.
That said, however, it is often quite apparent when something has been edited for the lulz. I once read an article on the Third Reich for a history paper, and it mentioned something about Hitler being the top gorilla who went to war because he ran out of bananas or something ridiculous like that.
I also read an article about genetics for my Animal Management course and about halfway through a paragraph it cut out and read 'I ATE AVRIL LAVINGE'S ASS'. So I think that bit might have been edited. I may be wrong.
If you have any research skills whatsoever Wikipedia is an excellent source. You need to check the specific page's sources and such but if anyone has written fake shit for the sake of being an asshole it will be blatant. Nobody is going onto Wikipedia and saying "hurrhurr, I'm gonna say that Mark Twain was born in Kansas City instead of Florida, MO!"
Accurate, yes. Vandals that run wild, yes. There is a town I live close to that wikipedia says "Is a town made in Satan's name because old route 66 runs through it" and something about a lot of sodomy.
I find some false stuff on there every now and then, but it's usually things that are way too wrong to even think are real at all.
usually accurate just sometimes in certain areas like history would state what is really an uncertain area as fact
One word: wikiality
http://www.wordspy.com/words/wikiality.asp
If an alteration is subtle enough, it will not be noticed.
Most of the information on there is probably accurate. But there is a heightened risk of inaccuracy because people en masse are quite dumb.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/wikiality.asp
If an alteration is subtle enough, it will not be noticed.
Most of the information on there is probably accurate. But there is a heightened risk of inaccuracy because people en masse are quite dumb.
Exactly, and it permanently updates and is therefore often more accurate than older books. A study was done on the very factual pages of wikipedia and of standard text books for university.Julianking93 said:
There are normally 3-4 errors on a wikipedia page and 2 on a modern text book page. That is a very small difference and the study was done on books by appraised publishers like Heinemann. No source of info is perfectly accurate and wiki isn't very much less than the official university books.