I commonly find myself using Wikipedia to look up information but how reliabe is it? Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers; its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. It is basically a bunch of people's knowledge that is collected for other people to use as a refrence. Should our kids be using thes type of materials as reference for something like a research paper vs. a good old encyclopedia? Tell me what you think?
P.S. How ironic that I am asking this on a website that people use to get answers to their questions..... lol
2007-05-10 08:42:54 · 29 answers · asked by Mr. Smith 2 in Computers & Internet ➔ Internet ➔ Wikipedia
Is wikipedia a great source of information? Absolutely!! Should it be used as a reference for school research/papers? No!! For that matter neither should any encyclopedia. The whole point of a research paper is to RESEARCH different sources and viewpoints. An encyclopedia and wikipedia are just collections/summaries of works. Neither should be used for term papers and research papers.
Now the difference between wikipedia and an encyclopedia is that any user can edit wikipedia. This has led to a handful of well-documented incidents of users posting false or malicious information. But really these are just a handful out of the millions of entries.
I find that the entries for current events seem to be the entries that get defaced. Say you are looking up information on Rutherford B. Hayes. I doubt anyone except those passionate about the presidency would be editing these entries.
On the non-history side, wikipedia is GREAT. Summaries and histories of TV shows, movies, musicians, comic book characters, etc is unmatched.
In summary, the information is very reliable. Should it be used for research papers? No. Just as you shouldn't use cliff notes for a book report...
2007-05-12 06:00:20 · answer #1 · answered by Alberto 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I have not heard whatever approximately Wikipedia being evil. A few of the articles have a few biased critiques further on, however it is lovely convenient to split that from the information. I've helped to give a contribution, and it feels well. It's so rapid and convenient to uncover the information you want.
2016-09-05 15:54:58 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read in the scientific journal Nature (how ironic would it be if I read this from an UN-reputable source!) that, on average, a Wikipedia article has 5 errors and an Encyclopaedia Britannica article has 4.
Naturally this infuriated Britannica, but this is accurate, true research done by scientists who know what they're doing.
2007-05-13 06:13:38 · answer #3 · answered by Superconductive Magnet 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you'd be wise not to use that site. in the end, wikipedia will make the world very ignorant/nescient. for instance, if you look up Solomon's mother Bathsheba the main photo shows her to be white. Bathsheba was a descendant of Ham, making her a woman of color. this is even argued in the 'Talk' page and has yet to be changed. its core goal is to promote a universal thought. this universal thought is embedded in an article's paragraphs, topics, subtopics even though 'the neutrality of the article is disputed'.
and anyone can edit it so at any given time you can be reading a 12 year old a racist a troll or an idiot's edit.
2007-05-12 08:17:34 · answer #4 · answered by Guy 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think Wikipedia is basically a GOOD thing.
When using Wikipedia, always keep in mind that the information may not be accurate. Verification and additional research would be required for important authoring activities that you may be involved with.
2007-05-11 02:06:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Wikipedia is not 100% reliable because you can edit a certain topic, and you never know if the person that created the topic knows what he's talking about.
2007-05-13 11:26:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
you can use the sources they cite on wikipedia, and you should be careful about what you read. I think that most people would only change it because they know what's right, and a jerk who's looking at website to mess around wouldn't do that on an encyclopaedia website, if you know what I mean.
2007-05-10 10:23:20 · answer #7 · answered by Bruntë 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Good.
They've got a pretty strong system of validating their articles. Of course, because anyone can edit it, there is always a chance of inaccurate information. Just be sure to check the sources.
Wiki is better than an encyclopedia because there are multiple writers for each article, and they are peer reviewed. So instead of just reading one POV in an encyclopedia, you're reading an iterative report based on multiple POVs. Also, inaccuracies are usually fixed quickly. Lastly, encyclopedias can often be out of date, whereas wiki is extremely current.
2007-05-10 09:50:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
I'm thinkin ...... don't always believe what you read. and I do not believe that wikipedia is accurate enough to use by our children like we did encyclopedias. I think there are many other ways to research things even on the web without using wikipedia.
2007-05-10 08:48:02 · answer #9 · answered by EGOman 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
wikipedia is actually very good for general knowledge questions... for example: who was abe lincoln? but for very in depth research... it becomes a little bit less reliable and may even be opinionated at times... wikipedia is fun and it definitely is not evil
as for kids using it... it is okay if they are satisfying curiousity and in limited amounts it is even ok to use as a source for school..
as a college student i usually consult wikipedia if i think i am missing something and usually get info from there and then cross-reference
2007-05-10 10:40:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋