Is it always your first port of call when doing research (before coming here of course)?
2006-10-05 22:12:29 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Computers & Internet ➔ Internet
From BBC.....
"
Wikipedia survives research test
John Seigenthaler Sr, AP
John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.
But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
Open approach
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.
It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.
We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder
It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.
In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.
"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.
Writing style
Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.
The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.
"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.
"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."
Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.
The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.
Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.
Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. "
2006-10-05 22:38:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
It's good but I don't think good enough to be relied blindly on. What exactly is the prupose for which you intend to use Wikipedia? Its pretty good for your satisfying personal curiosity but if you are doing some real research work, imo it is only good as a starting point. Fwiw wikipedia citations are not looked upon too kindly in the academic world.
Wikipedia Use as Research Tool Growing on College Campuses
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/53023.html
Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation
2006-10-06 05:35:11 · answer #2 · answered by Tracer Bullet 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It can be great but just like here lots of bad information can be put up on it so treat it with caution. It is not advisable to cite in academic or school research for example, but I always find it to be a good first port of call as it leads one to more reliable sources.
2006-10-06 05:23:35 · answer #3 · answered by Charlotte C 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think wikipedia is a really great source of information. Although you can never use just one source for info, so I always tend to google something as well as doing a bit of book research.
But I think if you are just looking for a few quick details wikipedia is great!
2006-10-06 05:17:05 · answer #4 · answered by big_roy_lwc 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
98%
better than yahoo answers
not as good as some people would like to think.
very bad for things which are disputed or require an opinion (things to do with, for example, spiritualism, religion, history, politics)
the fact that people can edit it has lead to some glaring errors.
But no resource is going to be perfect, and it is always a good idea to get your information from two or three independant sources
{edit} I see that someone said it was moderated... that is true, but it doesnt mean that ALL changes are moderated, only High profile or contentious subjects will be closely moderated, and it is very easy for a vandal to slip under the radar and add wrong information to areas which are not being scrutinised
2006-10-06 05:27:48 · answer #5 · answered by Vinni and beer 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, because its managed and contributed by the people, not a moderated council.
I know people who add lots of stuff to Wikipedia, i wouldn't trust thier answers any more than the junk we find on YA. Some of it is just plain wrong.
I see one entry in thier that I go and change to be correct, then the followign week one particualr person changes it back to suit his own agenda. So, its a lottery whether you pick up the truth or not.
2006-10-06 05:21:22 · answer #6 · answered by Michael H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's very good. The fact that users can edit it as they please makes it a really good website to use. It's monitored closely to make sure there is no abuse of users posting up false information, and when nothing is certain, such as a new article that has no real proof, then you will be warned.
I've never found a fault in any of the information I've found on it
2006-10-06 05:21:16 · answer #7 · answered by Mike 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wikipedia is brilliant. It is a great source of information about anything! I use that as a first place to find information.
2006-10-06 05:21:09 · answer #8 · answered by Heather 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
good enough not my first 'port of call.'
2006-10-06 05:14:47 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It is only as good as it's contributions, and it should be taken with a pinch of salt
2006-10-06 05:19:56 · answer #10 · answered by cottoncox 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋