Wikipedia's Accuracy
- Thread starter oppp7
- Start date
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.
It's usually pretty accurate the only thing is than anyone can go in and mess with it that's why it's looked on as a non credible source.
It's quite accurate when it comes to a lot of things. However, it's a bad idea to allow any freely editable documents as sources.
Of course, considering that many pages in wikipedia provide actual legitimate sources, it never hurts to look stuff up on wikipedia just to get a general idea of it and perhaps get a few sources that are included there.
Of course, considering that many pages in wikipedia provide actual legitimate sources, it never hurts to look stuff up on wikipedia just to get a general idea of it and perhaps get a few sources that are included there.
That. A friend I have even once said that his teacher told him that they can't use wikipedia, but they can use the sources that wikipedia used...Furburt said:
It's accurate to a certain degree. I wasn't allowed to use it as a source for any of my projects for school this year but it's alright. I've gotten worse information from other sites before like Starcraft 2 was cancelled or Obama has legalised pot...oh wait, I think I got that one from THIS site.
Wikipedia isn't a credible source, but it's a very fast hotlink to credible sources. Citations are fantastic, they do all the legwork for you. So yeah, in that respect, if you check the citations you'll never get suckered.
Wikipedia is very accurate, but it's can't be a trusted academic source because there's no guarantee it was edited by an academic. It's perfectly useful as an overview and often links to academic sources anyway, though, so it's still a perfectly valid tool to use in essay writing or whatever.
It's not a valid source for anything more than idle curiosity, and getting a vague overview on a subject. This of course varies from topic to topic, with some being far more accurate and in depth than others, but on the whole for anything more important or deep than a bar-room discussion of "I wonder what was about?".oppp7 said:
If I remember correctly there was a really good quote about Wikipedia that's appropriate for this question. To paraphrase, "The people who need Wikipedia don't have enough knowledge to accurately judge the information they're reading; the people who have the knowledge to accurately update Wikipedia don't have the time to".
There was actually a study carried out by my University whilst I was there over the reliability of Wikipedia (admittedly a completely different department) which was interesting in showing an "acceptable" level of accuracy in Wikipedia.
Besides the "accuracy" of Wikipedia, the main reason for centres of education not deeming "Wikipedia" as a valid reference - especially for scientific matters is that it's a tertiary source of information, more often than not being quotes of quotes of data obtained elsewhere. Alot of meaning can be lost unintentionally because of this - that and it's an important skill in academia in being able to deal with source materials (whether scientific results, mathematical equations or Shakespearian prose) without the need for someone to "paraphrase" it into a form you are more comfortable with, to keep the information "pure" and unbaised.
It's about as accurate as any other encyclopedia out there. Probably something like 85%, bu don't quote me on that.
I used to use Wikipedia all the time, but now I'm at University, and they basically open all criteria with a massive [NO WIKIPEDIA AS REFERENCE].
So I don't use it anymore, apart from personal browsing
Do I trust it? Yeah, as much as I trust all other websites...
So I don't use it anymore, apart from personal browsing
Do I trust it? Yeah, as much as I trust all other websites...
Wikipedia is about as accurate as most other secondary sources. It's just that Wikipidia's shortcomings are better documented. Other sources are just as flawed, they just feel more reliable because there paper. Sure, Wikipedia has vandalism, but most of these instances of vandalism are obviously so. Vandalism will rarely lead someone astray, because you can probably figure out that the Pope isn't actually an interstellar crocodile, and faulty edits are usually taken down with incredible speed. The point is that you should trust sources which are as primary as possible. Of course, you can most certainly use Wikipedia to jog your memory, or find a good overview of the material before you hunt down the sources behind the article. It may not be a source in and of itself in an academic setting, but it is still a very useful tool.