Is it dangerous to have it as a "factual" resource?
2006-08-04 06:11:34 · 15 answers · asked by truthyness 7 in Computers & Internet ➔ Internet
GC: right you are :-)
2006-08-04 13:31:46 · update #1
candy2: the advice of people on Answers is only opinion. Many look at Wiki as fact. I hope you know the difference...
2006-08-04 13:33:54 · update #2
lauran: I think fact and truth are not exactly the same. Some people belive that the Bible is true, but that doesn't make it fact. Besides, I asked if it was fact or truthiness :-)
2006-08-04 13:35:06 · update #3
Depending on what you're looking for, Wikipedia can have factual and a non-factual sourcesbecause when i was doing research for my paper about Zora Neale Hurston, and it did provided some good info, but i was alil skeptical about the information so i began to do some more research on other websites, and there was a mistake on Wikipedia, which could have gotten me a lower grade. So to make the long story short, don't just use one source for your paper, but use a couple more sources to see if just to see if the information is factual.
2006-08-04 06:23:46 · answer #1 · answered by Letrise 5 · 12⤊ 4⤋
Wikipedia is truthiness, for the simple reason that true facts can't be conveyed through secondary sources. Any descriptions given will be as close to the facts as possible, but will not be entirely a fact.
Generally speaking, it can be considered a "factual" resource, for as long as the word factual remains in inverted commas.
2006-08-04 18:33:34 · answer #2 · answered by Sweetz 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, if I understand what you are saying, then it is okay for certain things. If you have more of a scientific question, I'd suggest not using it to collect data, because really people can just go to the site and submit anything they want. You don't know if that person even knows anything of what they're talking about. If you wanted to know more about a TV show, movie, band, or anything along those lines, then it should be okay to use.
2006-08-04 13:24:14 · answer #3 · answered by Grant 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I have questions about something, I go to Wikipedia. If it's something major, I consider it just a starting point for my research. If it's just something trivial, like who is this band/actor, etc.? I've gotten enough information to then ask one of my friends who is likely to have more accurate information.
I have read entries about things in which some of the "facts" were completely wrong and I have corrected them.
2006-08-04 13:17:55 · answer #4 · answered by pynkbyrd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's "The Wisdom of Crowds." If you're willing to take the advice of people on Yahoo Answers, you should be willing to believe Wikipedia. Same idea.
2006-08-04 13:18:02 · answer #5 · answered by candy2mercy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't most people assume that EVERYTHING on the Internet comes with at least a few grains of salt?
The earth is full of salty ocean, and the earth is dangerous.
But it is all we have.
I'll take the internet...salt and all.
2006-08-04 13:19:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Any website that has a longer entry on truthyness than lutherans has its priorities straight!: haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHm0rGns4I
its the internet. what can you do?...anyone has the right to put up whatever they want, best to go to a more credible site for the important stuff
2006-08-04 13:21:44 · answer #7 · answered by GC 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For you to use them as a reference, I don't think it's as "dangerous" as the site itself, for it is responsible for its delivery of information. Besides, what's a "fact" anyway? :P
2006-08-04 13:17:27 · answer #8 · answered by ♥iamsleepy♥ 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As dangerous as anything else.
2006-08-04 13:16:05 · answer #9 · answered by The Confidence Breaker 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wikipedia skews their data...
2006-08-04 13:16:38 · answer #10 · answered by Nitz Frugent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋