I guess I don't understand where exactly wikipedia gets it's information, but I get the feeling a lot of people question it's reliability.
Why is that? I guess more importantly how do they get their information?
2007-01-02 03:53:41 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Its unreliable because one could go on there and say that George Bush is the 90th president of Canada and is only 26 years old. Not only blatant lies and trolling, I could go on there and say that Bush sucks and this and that and give it possibly a very subtle but liberal slant. Either way, its written by non scholars and often times the information is not backed up by sources.
2007-01-02 03:58:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Wikipedia sucks! Should never be used as a source IMO.
Can't tell you how many times I have run across erroneous information from Wikipedia.
ex- while it's been changed for the longest time they had George Mason listed as James Mason....argghhh! That one drove me crazy!..lol.
Then ....re: to topics that are controversial.....you generally get biased one-sided information, though they now have a disclaimer at least telling you that this info is controversial and "facts" are disputed.
Anyone can change or alter the definition...which is another problem.
true story: My son was doing a project about breast cancer( he was assigned this for a health class)...he had to have three sources...he choose Wikipedia as one of them....he happen to print out the info and being the nosey mom that I am I read it.....couldn't believe what I saw....as one of the "cures"...it said a man should ejaculate on her boobs. I looked it up again and that was gone...obviously a teenager or something goofing around....bottom line is wikipedia is NOT a good and RELIABLE source for information IMO.
2007-01-02 12:12:15 · answer #2 · answered by kissmybum 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to be careful when using Wikipedia. Some articles are open to being changed by the general public, some are not. Usually there is a disclaimer when the site has been altered, such as "The neutrality of this article is under question," etc. It's generally okay for the basic numbers and facts of past history and will provide their sources at the bottom of the page if you wish to check them out. I always look at their sources, as well as checking whether the article is open to change and additions from the public.
2007-01-02 12:10:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is only as reliable as the person who wrote the entry. Because of their open source nature, that means that the writer could be a PR guy, a doctoral student, or just some kid who heard a few rumors. I've found it to be a good source for general information, but that one should double-check any odd-sounding "facts" you get from there.
2007-01-02 12:10:37 · answer #4 · answered by JerH1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anyone can alter a posting on Wikipedia. Some of the posts are factual but many have a lot to be desired. You should ALWAYS check the facts you get on Wikipedia...especially if you are writing a paper or doing research.
2007-01-02 11:57:11 · answer #5 · answered by pelenpuppy 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is a type of Web site that allows the visitors themselves to easily add, remove, and otherwise edit and change some available content.
In other words, anyone can manipulate it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
2007-01-02 12:01:17 · answer #6 · answered by time_wounds_all_heelz 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's true that sometimes information on Wikipedia is false. But Wikipedia is still my domestic abuse partner. I'm on it at least once a day. =D
2007-01-02 14:12:53 · answer #7 · answered by animefan95 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Originally, anybody could alter the info in Wikipedia. Maybe they've changed that, I don't know. But originally, the info didn't come from actual experts, it came from anybody who wanted to say anything about anything.
2007-01-02 11:58:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Notoriously unreliable. See the following, it will demonstrate.
http://laneyeslwriting6.kern.org/stories/storyReader$566
2007-01-02 12:24:34 · answer #9 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beats me. I have never really understood why either.
2007-01-02 12:18:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋