Why do so many people accept Wikipedia as authoritative?

Question

Wikipedia's written by people who profess themselves to be experts, but about whom we know nothing of their credentials. It's a great idea because anyone can contribute to it, but just because someone, or many people say that the information is right doesn't make it so.

Good replies so far! And thanks for the study citations. My concern has been "who are the content checkers? and how often do they check it?" The studies cited below are retroactive samplings. With so much new, existing and revised Wiki content, can the checkers keep up and still maintain qood content quality control? It'll be interesting to see what transpires.

Also, if we don't know a topic and we go to Wiki, we're really not in the position to evaluate the correctness of the content. We can only trust the authors and the checkers, whoever they may be.

Answer 1

i agree with u... its not always right. but it is a easy place to go to... and u can find info almost about ANYONE OR ANYTHING... this makes alot of ppl go to it first.

Answer 2

Wikipedia (a combination of the word wiki and encyclopedia) is an on-line "copyleft" encyclopedia that is constantly evolving and can be edited by anyone. Hosted and supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, this open source resource is collaboratively created and maintained by thousands of users worldwide. Any article contributed to Wikipedia becomes free content that may be used, edited, copied and redistributed by users. All materials contributed to Wikipedia must be verifiable by other users.

Wikipedia is widely praised for its incredible breadth, covering subjects, sometimes in great depth, that would never appear in any encyclopedia, online or print. There are so many "eyes" looking at an entry that erroneous information is often caught rather quickly. However, Wikipedia is also disparaged because people can make edits without divulging any of their credentials or experience in the subject. Of course, this is the case with any information on the Web. In addition, if vendors see comments about their category of products, nothing stops them from editing a definition that tilts it toward their particular expertise.

Wikipedia is the only authenticated source "on line" and with minium errors. They constantly research and amend the pages and also introduce new pages. For laymen like us it is the best. So many people accept it athoritative.-

Answer 3

Well if I was to be cynical about "kids these days" I'd say it's cos they're too lazy to look stuff up for themselves and it's the quickest way to pad out an essay. It may also be that people are not critical thinkers these days - they accept whatever information is on the net (e.g. news blogs) and don't consider who's responsible for site content.

But in defence of WIki: if i don't know anything about a topic or don't know what a word means or an abbreviation refers to (i'm not american so like afl-cio) or i'm just generally curious it's my 1st internet stop. If it's something that i need for uni then I do my own research and might look at the references of the article (if any) and chase them down myself - funnily enough i've never found any truly horrible errors in the stuff i've used. I don't think it's appropriate to cite it in a report/thesis unless maybe it's pop culture type stuff.

I look at Wiki as a good 1st step if you're stuggling to understand a big topic or to see links between things. I see it kind of how I think people should use crib notes of books. Some people use these notes to save themselves from having to read something other than tv guide but i think crib notes are great if you're having a hard time getting your head around jane austen, dickens, etc. Use the notes to get a feel for the book as a whole and then read it for yourself and make your own mind up. I think it's good cos you'll never enjoy something if you don't understand it but if you get a feel for it then you can really love it. I think WIki has that effect of putting e.g. the life story of american democracy in one article so you can get an overview but from there go forth and research with an idea in your head of the topic rather than a complete blank.

Answer 4

Wiki use to be a collection of reviewed and source checked materials. Now it is set so some days you go on a page and through the entire day you can figure out people are at war over what is true and what is false and what is supposed to be there,.. it just constantly changes throughout the day >.<

Like I said,.. It USE to be different. Now it sucks.

Alot of people on Yahoo! Answers are looking for quick points not accurecy so they just quote Wiki and then provide a link. I HATE Copy & Paste Answers like that because some times [you need to] go beyond just one description [or the question is requesting many answers and only one description for one answer to one thing is given] and too often THE SOURCE THEY ARE QUOTEING IS WRONG. Or atleast not enough information is provided,... details covered,..

Good Luck holding your temper,.. I don't XD

Added: wondering: I'd say there is a noticeable number of Wiki pages I have read that have been COMPLETELY WRONG. As wrong as when people on Baby name sites get away with submitting and it being accepted something like Usagi means Sailor Moon in Japanese. Nearly all other Wiki pages I see have parts or statements that are wrong. But I know the subject. So I feel like Lindsey Lohen in Mean Girls when she wants a boy's attention so she acts like she can't understand some math problem and for every answer/explaination/instruction he gives she thinks in her head " Wrong!". Many entries in Wiki are also includeing information that some people think is true but started as a rumor and is not true... posibly completely untrue. So some entries in Wiki to me would be like if you found a teacher useing Wiki as a Reference and Wiki said Michael Jackson was a Fairy from another planet that is White, Female, and killed one of her offspring by dropping it into an enclouser containing the last surviveing monkey from the Jursic Park Period because she wanted to feed the baby to the monkey. Seriously there have been some entries that screwed up >.<

Answer 5

First off, most of the information is very credible. Information put into an article requires citation if it's not common knowledge, and those sources need to be credible as well. It's just like a regular research paper in this respect. Information without citation is deleted after an allotted amount of time for adding a citation has passed.

Secondly, the articles need to be written in a non-biased fashion.

Thirdly, there are specific standards that need to be met for each article, if the article fails to meet the standards after a certain amount of time, it will be deleted.

Research has been done on Wikipedia, and results conclude that Wikipedia is just as accurate as professionally published encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica

Answer 6

Actually a study was recently done on the subject which found that in a sample of entries, wikipedia had about the same number of errors as the encyclopedia Britannica. So it is generally just as accurate as a traditional source.

There may be people who add erroneous info from time to time, but it is usually changed pretty quickly.

Answer 7

I know! I use it though. Not for major research or anything of course, but if I need a quick reference or want to look for a general overveiw of something Wiki is good for that. It's obviously not something anyone should use as their main research for a paper (but what encyclopedia is) It is very reliable though even if it's not an authority.

Answer 8

It's often used because it's a site that has 'gathered' lots of info on whatever topic you need. One can find what is needed really quick, even if it's not completely correct. People use it because they are too lazy to do the research themselves, in other words...

Answer 9

all the informations are mostly correct and it can really help every students on their research, studies and assignments... Wikipedia is very much reliable but sometimes they don't have the one that i am looking for. But in Overall, wikipedia is a great site and a great help.

Answer 10

true but that's how and why rumors get started and people believe what they hear something from someone who they "think" knows something and occasionally the rumors are true or have some truth to them so people keep listening. So until Wikipedia is more wrong than right- people will keep reading it as fact.

Answer 11

I have regularly been using Wiki, and I find it most useful. In fact it my preferred refernce souce. I have not read anything in it which makes me doubt the correctness of the information given. Also Wiki flags off all the topics which it feels is not properly researched.