i really like wikipedia for all the info it provides on pretty obscure topics, but...since its an encyclopedia for the people by the people, can it be trusted?
2007-01-08 02:49:02 · 10 answers · asked by cryingtree1979 4 in Computers & Internet ➔ Internet
By definition a Wiki is open to all users to edit. Wiki.org defines a Wiki as: “a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser.” The concerns raised are valid, but it also has a remarkable power as a means of information exchange. So yes, it is much like life, we must use our knowledge and experience to evaluate the material we find and ultimately utilize. If someone were to publish a poorly researched book we would also have to evaluate the legitimacy of the information contained therein as well. There is a responsiblity incumbent upon those who maintain Wikipedia to make sure that it is not abused and a mechanism for slanderous type material to be removed. But on the whole, I feel that the ability of Wikipedia to bring vasts stores of knowledge together outweighs some of the possible negatives that come with it.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html#
2007-01-08 03:02:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Generally I would say yes.
One good thing about wikipedia is that it often provides links to lots of other websites with related information. But how can you trust them? Ultimately, how can you trust anything you research on the web? Unless it's in a textbook at your college, don't trust it 100%.
On that note, my teaches have told me that some textbooks are wrong!!!
If it is simply for your entertainment, you can trust pretty much all of it. I visit daily just to read about random articles, finding interesting facts. For the most common and important topics, it is pretty reliable. People are constantly reviewing, re-writing, and making it more accurate. If you click on the "discussion" tab at the top you can see what people are talking about. If there is a lot of discussion, chances are that people are keeping an eye on it making sure it is accurate. If there is no discussion, it could have been written by a single shmuck.
It is the same as talking to someone on the street. They're probably telling the truth, but if you want all the facts, trust yourself to find the answer.
2007-01-08 09:10:32 · answer #2 · answered by Nova Dragon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think wikipedia is relatively reliable. I think the people who actually CARE about the information will change it. but i would not site it as a source, but i do use it so i can get follow up information on other more accurate websites with people who are definitely professionals. Besides, its not completely reliable. Once, this kid changed the date the date the declaration of independence was signed to 1976 and it didn't get changed for like 3 weeks.
2016-05-23 10:22:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, it can be trusted. It is constantly under editing revision. Sometime people get through the cracks with posting false information but wikipedia will catch those sites pretty fast. If it does happen a couple of days later it will be gone.
They also monitor the "controversial" topics more closely (religion, sex, etc) so that people don't abuse those.
I trust the site.
2007-01-08 02:51:53 · answer #4 · answered by Drew P 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I use it in everyday type questions, but I would not use it in my research papers because you don't know the credentials of the people that post to it and professors will mark you down for it. I think for the most part it is reliable because people are allowed to post and then others are allowed to correct and change anything that may be missing or wrong with the posts.
Generally, I find that the people that post their answers are those that know the subject they are posting to. I have made a couple of posts to it and it is only with topics that I know a great deal about.
2007-01-08 02:57:48 · answer #5 · answered by Water weasels 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never, ever use only one source when looking into a topic. Wikipedia is pretty reliable, but it is only as good as the person or persons that wrote it. I like a good old Webster's Dictionary myself.
2007-01-08 02:54:26 · answer #6 · answered by golden rider 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Academically NO! but generally it is probably OK. I would recommend you try and find at least one more source (not just copied from Wikipedia) that backs up what the wikipedia article is saying.
I love Wikipedia too, and use it almost daily.
2007-01-08 02:53:03 · answer #7 · answered by Keiko 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not, due to the fact that the posting could be edit by anyone.
Bush has been blocked, too many changes by users
2007-01-10 13:54:48 · answer #8 · answered by art_raiders 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
usually it can, unless you read something that seems way way off - then you should double check it.
2007-01-08 02:51:38 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not entirely.
2007-01-08 02:50:55 · answer #10 · answered by Rvn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋