Why do people post answers and quotes from wikepedia.com? There information is far from accurate.?

Question

You can submit changes online and they can get posted. I agree that some of the information is ok and you can get a general idea of topics but wikepedia is not an acurate site.

Answer 1

Amen.

Answer 2

*shrug* I love it. Besides, once I posted some info to Wikepedia that was not quite appropriate for the topic, and it got deleted. There are people there looking out for quality control, rest assured.

If anything, it is a good starting point for research. Everything that is stated on a Wikepedia page can be proved true or false with a small amount of effort if one feels so inclined. Personally, I enjoy an encyclopedia written from varying degrees of experience and knowledge.

Answer 3

Actually, Wikipedia is a far better source than most people credit it, and it is the model that I think will be adopted more and more.
Consider a regular encyclopedia. It is assembled by one group of people hired by the publisher. Their decisions are final. The publisher's goal is to get something to print and make money. They will not get into any long controversy or submit a question for review by academics worldwide for years to solve a question. They set a deadline, and that's that. The more experts they hire, the more their overhead, so they keep it to a minimum.
Wikipedia incorporates an entirely different model, one that allows the peer review process to be ongoing and world-wide. It has aspects of free-market, democracy, evolution, and the scientific process in its workings. Wacky stuff can get in, but will not last long. The continuous peer-review is a winnowing process, allowing it to be refined and improved at all times. It also contains far more material than any printed encyclopedia.
Those who criticize Wikipedia and the model it is based on are usually focused on the rare exceptions, not the whole of what it has produced, which is the largest and most comprehensive single body of knowledge ever to exist on this planet.

Answer 4

we've had a set of encyclopedias available to the world for ages.... has everyone forgotten this simple thing?

they define EVERYTHING in this world.

I agree about Wiki. Read an article about how some guy posed as a high end college professor and altered thousands of posts on Wiki. Later to be caught as a punk, drop out 17 yr old who was pranking. But now how many have the wrong information, facts, and are now gonna spread that wrong info, in turn creating more conspiracy, issues, and problems down the line.

Its why momma always said stay off the fence, gossip'n isn't a good thing. The facts ma'am, just the facts.

Answer 5

For me, it depends on the topic. If I can't remember the exact date of a huge event, I'll often look it up there; it's quite convenient. However, in most cases, the date's familiar, so I'd notice if it were wrong. I simply use Wikipedia to refresh my memory.

Yes, it isn't very accurate. In fact, it's no longer an acceptable source in many schools. For instance, a couple of years ago, everyone but 5 people used Wikipedia for a project, and everyone that used it had points taken away--a large part of the assignment was determining good sources, and the teacher felt no Wikipedia article should be considered a good source, unless you back it up with another source.

Answer 6

Is Wikipedia accurate and reliable?

Wikipedia is as reliable as the external sources on which we rely. Properly written articles cite the sources, and a reader should rely on the Wikipedia article as much, but no more, than the sources on which the article relies. If an article doesn't cite a source, it may or may not be reliable. Students should never use information in Wikipedia for formal purposes (such as a school essay) until they have checked those external sources. Fortunately, Wikipedia cites its sources more frequently than most other publications.
Wikipedia is rapidly developing, so the reliability of the encyclopedia is improving all the time. Because readers continually compare articles to what they already know, articles tend to become more accurate and detailed. Certain articles about many of the major sciences were developed from other free or public domain encyclopedias. This provides a reliable basis upon which encyclopedia writers could develop more current information. Wikipedia is cited almost daily in the press (see Wikipedia as a press source).
On the other hand, it is possible for an article on Wikipedia to be biased, outdated, or factually incorrect. This is true for any resource. One should always double-check the accuracy of important facts, regardless of the source. In general, popular articles are more accurate because they are read more often and therefore any errors are corrected in a more timely fashion. Also, there may be a Western bias in particular because that is where most contributors are from

What keeps someone from contributing false or misleading information?

Nothing. Anyone can, at this very moment, go to almost any page and change the information to make it misleading or wrong. Very specific minor facts, like an exact date for a less well known historical event, are less trustworthy since vandals sometimes change them. The vast majority of edits are, however, improvements.
Vandalism usually does not stay for long. Scores of contributors monitor the list of contributions (particularly to important or controversial articles), and will quickly delete nonsense or obviously wrong articles, and undo baseless edits. Almost all articles will be on one or more editors' personal watch lists, and they will quickly undo any vandalism. Major articles will be on hundreds of watchlists, so that whenever vandalism is performed, it will be seen and undone in a matter of minutes or less. If an anonymous or relatively new user changes a number or a date by a little bit, without justifying their edit, it is particularly likely to raise a red flag. If someone only contributes vandalism (that obviously isn't a mistake), then they can be blocked.
Unlike print sources, however, Wikipedia keeps a full history of the changes that led to the current version of each article. If something seems strange about an article, click on the "history" tab at the top of the page to see what has been changed recently.
Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is almost certainly inaccurate information in it, somewhere, which has not yet been discovered to be wrong. Therefore, if you are using Wikipedia for important research or a school project, you should always verify the information somewhere else. You should also check that the other source does not rely on Wikipedia for its information.
As a courtesy, if you find in the course of your study or research that Wikipedia has incorrect information, we request that you correct or remove the incorrect information onwiki.

Answer 7

Prove it is inaccurate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10478207/

I don't use it as an end-all be-all. But it is very transparent in the fact that you don't have to trust wikipedia itself because all the sources are noted at the bottom of each article. I have seen some sketchy information @ wikipedia, but follow the links for the sources and you'll find that, for a free, open, extremely broad web resource, there is none better.

Now, on individual topics, yes, there are better sources. But many are pay services.

Again, wikipedia is not the final authority, but it is almost always a great starting point for research.

Answer 8

A study conducted a few years ago found that Wikopedia was as reliable a source of information as any of its competitors in the community of encyclopedias, which surprised me to no end. There are inappropriate uses for it, though; last year a fellow student cut and pasted an entire report from the big Wik without even bothering to remove the superscripts indicating sources or footnotes, and I've seen people do the same for their answers here without even bothering to acknowledge Wikopedia as a source.

Answer 9

I agree, and so do a lot of college professors. However, its a good place to start. You can then attempt to verify that the information placed on Wikipedia is accurate or not by continuing to use the web and checking and double-checking the information posted.

Answer 10

It's popular. That's why. My students use it. They used it so much at one college I teach at that the college made us instructors put out a statement declaring Wikipedia an unreliable source.

That said, I use it every now and then too. If I find something interesting, I try to verify it elsewhere though. So like the HypnoPope up there said, it's a good starting point.

Answer 11

It's a starting point, not the definitive answer. And you simplify and misrepresent the working of wikipedia. There is a lot of redaction going on. The more controversial and well-fleshed articles always diligently cite their sources for further study.