I know a lot about many different subjects, and to my eye, most of what appears in the WIkipedia seems to be as accurate as any other popular source of information. This might not be the case when one gets into more subjective or controversial information, but overall I don't see much to support the popular contention that the Wikipedia is a refuge for morons and tinfoil hat wearers.
2007-03-07 08:17:02 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Two scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived and that Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as other online encyclopedias.
Most of the featured articles are very well sourced, and yep, Wikipedia is very reliable. Look at the number of reference from the best articles, terrific!
2007-03-07 08:19:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only problem with the information on Wikipedia is that anyone can go on and add or write things on it. I'm in college and when doing any type of research/thesis papers, all of my professors have said that we are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source because it's not "reliable." I haven't found too much information on it that hasn't been accurate, but there have been a few times.
2007-03-07 08:32:29 · answer #2 · answered by mrb1017 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anyone can log into Wikipedia and alter the answers where they see fit. It's supposed to be an opportunity to get as much expertise into any given topic from around the world. It's like Communism... it seems like a good concept on paper but doesn't work in real life.!!! Since anyone has access and no rules determine who is an expert, it's all fair game. Wikipedia is often considered by universities to be an unacceptable source of information for research projects. And it has also coined the term "Wikiality".!!
2007-03-07 08:23:50 · answer #3 · answered by Kai Dao 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is strictly monitored, and has an exhaustive editing protocol in place. While discretion should be used when evaluating the trustworthness of any human edited source, wikipedia can generally be counted on.
This very subject has just recently been brought up in the press, in regards to a new rule which requires those that claim a certain status to verfify their claims before citations are published.
See this link:
2007-03-08 09:18:11 · answer #4 · answered by Megan C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is more reliable for information that a lot of people would be able to know or find out, because there are more people around to make corrections. If the information is obscure, then there will be few people to correct it, so wrong information can more easily stay on the site. I have found articles about obscure things that definitely contained wrong information. The most recent was not subjective or controversial, it was the year a product was introduced, and was wrong by about 20 years.
2007-03-07 08:26:23 · answer #5 · answered by Lazy G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion--no. It is very reliable (in most cases) and is often used by students from Pre-K to 12th grade. Wikipedia is one of the largest growing encyclopedias in the world, and the fact that it is in multiple languages and is free is a plus for many people. I often casually surf Wikipedia and the information is mostly accurate.
2007-03-07 08:21:45 · answer #6 · answered by Maelys 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My rule of thumb is: If I just want to know common knowledge about something I happen to know nothing about, Wikipedia is the place. If I want scholarship, well, I look somewhere else.
Wikipedia is useful as a meta-source: what people think they know.
And it's a hell of a lot better than Conservapedia, except in the Unintentional Comedy department.
2007-03-07 08:20:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anyone can edit it.
If I say I know all about "ferytxs" (whatever that is) I can write an article about it.
However, things do get reviewed--and certain subject topics are written by knowledgable sources. A lot of things I've read (that I already know) are pretty accurate. I suppose it depends on the subject matter.
2007-03-07 08:20:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I use Wikipedia all the time, for papers and I'm in college, if it bad them I'm in trouble. I love the site and I don't wear a tinfoil hat. Usually if it has sources, I think its good.
2007-03-07 08:20:22 · answer #9 · answered by ArchAngel Raziel 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the best free single source of information on the web. Most complaints tend to be from fringe groups who don't want subjects treated neutrally. Plus, the references provide a good starting point for more detailed research.
2007-03-07 08:19:57 · answer #10 · answered by Dave P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋