I have found this to be a highly dubious source of information, since they let anybody edit listings. I know it has overseers that are surposed to check and authorise any altered listings, but I have found them wanting.
2007-05-25 12:30:53 · 15 answers · asked by Puck 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
I have little faith in Wiki, as well. But most here on the forum will want to continue to use Wiki because it is easier then reading, accumulating knowledge or reading a book. They can also get their answer up quicker than some one that wants to make sure they are giving the questioner a true and factual answer.
2007-05-25 15:52:10 · answer #1 · answered by Terry 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How so? Cite an example of an article that is not up to par. I hear this claim often though I've never personally found an article on there to have anything other than minor mistakes. Generally the mistakes are quickly corrected by someone who does, indeed, know the correct information which is part of the strength of the site.
True, anyone can edit an article but, like I said, that's a strength. If some idiot posts something that's either blatantly false, or more subtly so, some knowledgeable person will be along shortly to correct it.
2007-05-25 19:36:40 · answer #2 · answered by Digital Haruspex 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Wikipedia can still be useful, but you've gotta go about it the right way.
Wikipedia often has a lot of basic information about topics, organized in a neat fashion, that you can use as a springboard to do actual research. In other words, if you take the information with a grain of salt, you should be safe.
2007-05-26 02:44:57 · answer #3 · answered by vladblutsauger 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cross-referencing is the surest way of building confidence in the subject you are researching. Use the bibliography to source other material and you will not only learn more about the subject but you will discover whether the original source is outdated or flawed.
Enjoy your research!
2007-05-25 22:46:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Wikipedia usually has some useful and highly readable information on just about every subject imaginable. I personally like it. Do I take it as "Gospel" (lol)? No, not hardly. I don't even take the Gospel as Gospel, but that's another story.
2007-05-25 19:53:24 · answer #5 · answered by harridan5 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's used for convenience, really. Websites are usually unreliable for info, even more so than books, because of the manual updating that is necessary to keep them current. I think most people know Wikipedia is not the gospel.
2007-05-25 19:36:20 · answer #6 · answered by jenesuispasunnombre 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wonder this myself, although I have been known to cite wikipedia as an example (ie: This is so well known it's even in wikipedia) and I've sent people to specific articles that I know don't suck.
2007-05-25 19:53:38 · answer #7 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it seems to credible. Most of the listings are True. though some are needing some "correcting". Most information found on there is correct. for the most part anyway.
2007-05-25 19:34:07 · answer #8 · answered by carneymaster11 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't. I know that most of what's in Wikipedia is correct or factual, but sometimes there would be major errors. I tried to edit and correct these errors in Wikipedia but get "slapped in the face".
2007-05-25 20:19:52 · answer #9 · answered by bryan_q 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I tend to use Wikipedia as a *baseboard*... AND sometimes for the sheer ease of it.
As a baseboard I use the links to go to more credible sites.
2007-05-28 04:14:40 · answer #10 · answered by ll_jenny_ll here AND I'M BAC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋