Do you trust Wikipedia?

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

For non-critical info, sure. As a compendium of what our society believes is true, it's probably pretty accurate. (for what is truth but that which a society agrees upon at a given time?) It appears as though the majority of entries are put up by people knowledgeable about the subject at hand. Wikipedia is peer-reviewed in the sense that the common people who read it have the ability to change outrageously inaccurate entries in real-time, so in some regards it can be more accurate than published books, encyclopedias or journals, which can't be easily changed after printing. I have no doubt that there are gaggles of Wikithusiasts scouring Wikipedia daily, and whose greatest reward in life is finding and correcting errors.

However, when the facts count, I prefer time-tested, peer reviewed sources like Weekly World News or the National Enquirer.

Answer 3

It beats Conservepedia any day. and as another writer on a different forum wrote:

I can't make up this stuff...

"A much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."

Here is the entry on the Kangaroo:

quote:"Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East[1] and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[2] -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters[2]."



- From http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo

Answer 4

Actually there was a story about Wikipedia on the NBC Nightly News a few days ago.

It seems that all there information is not accurate and people are assuming that it is.

In general I think most of there information is correct. But it wouldn't hurt to cross check what you are looking up with another source.

I'm assuming that the NBC News Report on Wikipedia is why you are asking this question.

Answer 5

Yes I do trust Wikipedia.

Answer 6

I sometimes use Wikipedia as a starting point for research- it's almost impossible to google something and not have WIkipedia come up as one of the first five links, but it is rarely, if ever a part of my work cited page. I have teachers that will allow it, and others who are quite explicit about NOT allowing students to use it.

I just fact check their fact checking in EBSCO host or some other more reliable source.

The Oscar Wilde page is hilarous though.

Answer 7

I generally find it to be a fairly reliable source with useful references and links. As an open source encyclopedia (anyone can edit it) it is not acceptable for any academic papers or projects. Some Wikipedia editors are in their early teens, there is poor writing in many articles and editors often engage in childish conflicts with one another behind the scenes. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does usually prove to be useful and it is free!

Answer 8

Wikipedia is not a credible source. It's basically a collection of gossip and opinions that's not true. Anyone can go into a wikipedia site and erase information from the site and type their own information. This is why it's not a credible source to use.

Answer 9

No, because of what I learned from my college prof in history.

"A statement is nothing without the proof to back it up".

When it comes to written articles, the more valid references (the tiny footnotes at the bottom the page in book) the more you can trust the validity of said article because it shows that the author did the proper research to substantiate his/her claim.

The problem with wikipedia is that even IF there are references, the references themselves are often in question because said references have been produced in a manner that has no method shown or are like the said Wiki page they are used as references as "simply drawn from the top of my head".

The problem with Wiki is that it is based on the flawed reasoning "that many people CANT be wrong". Thing is, billions CAN be wrong on some piece of information.

Answer 10

Yes, with reservations. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, it's not always accurate, therefore it shouldn't be relied upon as one's only source or reference.

However, because anyone can edit Wikipedia, the errors -- and the deliberate vandalizations -- are generally corrected within a few days.

Answer 11

Forgive me, my reference was to a local news program were students were getting bad info from wikipedia. Teachers were recommending that students not use it as a primary source. The news program supposedly contacted Wikipedia and they agreed because anyone can get on and edit info.