Anyone can post information or articles on wikipedia whether they really are an expert in a field or just know a little bit about a subject. That doesn't say a lot about credibility especially when you read legitimate media articles that say someone falsely represented or changed information on wikipedia. The case of the recently deceased wrestler (Benoit) who allegedly killed his wife and son and then hanged himself is a perfect example. Shortly before law enforcement agencies released all the information, someone changed the entry to say his wife had been murdered also. The person was tracked down and admitted that he had posted it for the fun of it even though he didn't know if it was truthful.
Some people on YA give stupid answers for the points, but for the most part I've found they generally care about others on here and try to be helpful and give advice based on what limited information they have. If you have any questions about their authenticity on a subject, you can always check out their profile and see their questions and answers.
Some people just aren't familiar with the different websites or know how to correctly word a search. This may be a starting point or they're looking for a quick response. For accuracy I'll trust YA over wikipedia any time.
2007-07-07 20:31:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by goldie 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Wikipedia is actually just about as accurate as other encylopedias.
http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5786064
http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
There are many subjects where I would trust Wikipedia more than others (computer info for example) since the articles are written my experts in the field (and looked over by other experts).
What completely amazes me is people asking about error messages here that could easily be Googled. It is very likely that a forum post will come up in the search by someone who is experiencing a very similar problem, and the answer would be more comprensive. I've rarely had the need to post questions anywhere, I search first.
What also gets me is that the information on the internet is much more vast than it was when I first started. I really think it's the generation of instant gradification. Why be bothered with research when people are willing to come to you with answers?
When a person searches for answers to questions (computer related or not) the initial unrelated information that they may come across would very likely help them in the future. But again: why bother knowing anything that doesn't immediately satisfy? That goes against everything the "Entitled Generation" believes in, does it not?
_
2007-07-08 03:53:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by erfahren 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because
1. Lazy to read - wikipedia usually contains a lot of technical information which the user doesn't want to know, instead of reading, they just ask for a summary answer.
2. Elaboration - normally wikipedia only search for a word or two. The user cannot fully explain what he/she is looking for. In Yahoo! Answer for example, you can ask the whole question and people feedback accordingly.
3. Famous - Yahoo! tense to be more famous than Wikipedia!
4. Name - 'yahoo' contains 5 characters and much more easy to be remembered by the user, 'wikipedia' is 9 characters.
5. Search - When the user wants to search for something, the usual terms are yahoo, google and msn, seldom goes to wikipedia. Especially for children and youngsters.
;-)
2007-07-08 03:20:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by zhichien 1
·
5⤊
0⤋
Because they don't know they can!!!!!
I've been with Wikipedia since November last year and only a few weeks ago did I find out they had a Reference Desk where people would show up and answer your questions within a few hours, giving links to wiki articles!!!!!
Also, Wikipedia can be a bit intimidating for some people, and if you're on Answers it could just be more convenient. And if you're not a regular Wikipedia user you may feel more comfortable asking and receiving answers for questions in a more "unprofessional" environment such as this one.
2007-07-08 08:33:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
You can get more information from around the world rather than just from a site. Wikipedia does provide a lot of info but it sometimes does not have info that people here on Yahoo! have.
2007-07-08 03:27:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by PAIN K 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
To get help with theyre Wikipedia Questions
2007-07-11 23:54:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well because some people do not want to go searching through millions of articles just to find something. Asking a question on Yahoo! Answers also gives you the opportunity to meet other people who may have a degree in that specialty or have already accomplishes your question. It is neat getting all sorts of answers to your question plus Yahoo! Answers is like a hobby or sport to some people.
2007-07-11 22:06:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Golden Ivy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Although wikipedia can answer most questioins that are asked her for some people its more assuring when asking acutal people.
Plus there is so many different articles and answers for one question that is answering in many different levels. So somtimes its just easier to have active people answer your questions so your not just reading multiple web sites. Its just a change of information and its presented in a more understandable way somtimes.
Hope i've helped :]
2007-07-08 03:10:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Sadly judging from the quality of some ... no ... many of the questions that get asked here ...they dont know how to ask questions at all!
Or they dont know how to combine search parameters to get the best results from Wikipedia and other search engines!
2007-07-11 02:11:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by JeeVee 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
They hate searching for articles and the people visting here are more specific. The WikiArticles are pretty long and nobody likes searching through so many of these just to find one answer. On the other hand this site gives quick, albeit sometimes inaccurate or biased, answers.
2007-07-11 11:04:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋