I see many of you are referencing Wikipedia as your sources... but anyone can add and edit information on Wikipedia. How many of you trust it faithfully? I admit, I use it to look things up often, but I don't trust it wholeheartedly as with most information I find on the internet (unless I know its from a legitimate site). Just wondering what all of you think about it...
2007-01-08 09:19:39 · 23 answers · asked by Ms. K. 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Generally speaking, I think it is a good source. Some of the information might be biased, but enough people edit it that it would be unlikely for an actual error to stay around for very long.
2007-01-08 09:22:26 · answer #1 · answered by computerguy103 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I trust it, for the most part, if there are references on the bottom on the article. Any article that either contains no references or on which Wikipedia states the information has not been referenced. The references make it easy to check the information given, no references, I don't know where the editor got the information from.
2007-01-08 09:22:59 · answer #2 · answered by Joy M 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There was a recent study showing that wiki was just as accurate as some of the other encyclopedias.
Check out the following sites:
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Some say it may be more accurate because thousands or readers check it daily. But of course with everything else on line or in print, you should take everything with a grain of salt. Double and tripple confirm everything you read if you need to use it for research. And it's definately not to be used for research papers! Only for an overview of a topic.
Edited note: Some of the responses say that it is "biased". Isn't everything. No matter the source, everything was written by people, and bias is never eliminated. Just look at the news you read in the newspapers.
2007-01-08 09:23:41 · answer #3 · answered by Amber C 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I use answers.com as my source, which actually cites stuff from wikipedia. It also gets stuff off other websites though.
I suppose nothing on the internet can be trusted eh? Yahoo! could just collapse at any given moment. *shrug* Believe what you choose to believe.
I think they're true myself, but I suppose you can never be too sure. The internet's a quick and easy way to find the most miscellaneous of things - and it's almost instant! You type in a keyword and your browser is filled with plentiful amounts of juicy knowledge. I suppose it'd be too good to be true if every little thing was 100% true.
2007-01-08 09:22:23 · answer #4 · answered by Deconstitutionalization 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I trust Wikipedia as much as I trust anything I read on the internet. I try to check things out with other sources. The people behind Wikipedia check the information as much as they can and if they find misinformation, they remove it.
2007-01-08 09:25:12 · answer #5 · answered by wendy_da_goodlil_witch 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wikipedia, (much like science) relies on "peer review" for accuracy. If a Wiki user finds a "fact" that isn't actually a fact, or an incorrect attribution, the system is designed to allow for peer-reviewed editing and correction.
2007-01-15 01:33:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't trust Wikipedia at all. It's edited with personal bias, and even if one objects to a particular bias in an article, the most agressive 'anonymous' editor wins.
It's sickening that it has become so popular and is always the first result in Google. It will change history because so many people will learn incorrect information.
Think "Pallywood".
2007-01-08 09:26:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Generally it's pretty good. I have seen some articles that are obviously bias(usually political) in their statements. You have to understand that it is not a bunch of scholars that are held to peer review, writing these articles. It's people like you and me.
To Thin, below. Peer review entails a certain degree of critical analysis that the average person does not have the discipline to understand. Peer review is what is given by declaired professionals, in their field. Wiki's peer review is the average Joe.
Examples are often given by public figures who have complained that the information on themselves is not correct, yet nothing is changed or takes a long time to make a change in wording that does not reflect the authors bias motivation. Peer review in professional publications is what keeps eronious information from being spread to the public, before it is published(if at all).
2007-01-08 09:29:08 · answer #8 · answered by Ben B 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Haha, well if it has big words, then yes!
But seriously, I trust most of it. Usually if somebody is posting false information you can tell because it's completely ridiculous or has nothing to do with the topic you're talking about.
,Phil
P.S The smart thing to do is use Britannica if you're not sure about some information on wikipedia.
2007-01-08 09:23:27 · answer #9 · answered by Phil 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would rather ask a stranger than ask wikipedia. Why waste the time researching something if you can not trust the sources.
2007-01-08 09:23:27 · answer #10 · answered by Shmesh 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋