Really, has everyone gotten so arrogant that they really believe that Wikipedia is the be-all end-all of accessible knowledge? I mean, reading some of these answers, I have to wonder if the people cut and pasting them from Wikipedia are even thinking when they do so. Wikipedia isn't always right - I mean, god, it's a popular-knowledge database that's only true until someone comes along and changes something. There is no accountability. Can we really stake our intelligence on this type of claim?
2007-08-10 09:04:21 · 11 answers · asked by Raiveran Rabbit 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Other - Education
Edit: If I could, I'd like to ask all the people who answered to just read through all the posted answers for this question. If you read them, many of them start sounding similar. "The staff at Wikipedia make sure no one makes mistakes", and things to that effect. Also, statements about other people editing it, and it being illegal to post misinformation.
You're all forgetting one thing; that was my POINT. What do you know about the people who run Wikipedia? Who says if I change something and they change it back that they're not wrong and I'm not right? Where do they get the information to do so? And if they get it, why get people to type it out if they're just going to "correct it" anyway?
Also, the answers about "other" people "correcting" it get a thumbs down. I don't think you really understood my question.
For the person who said the Bible was the only truth - I gave you a thumbs down and sent you an email attempting to explain my choking disbelief at your hypocrisy.
2007-08-10 09:46:16 · update #1
To the person who believes Wikipedia "checks" the information; again, I ask, why have anyone type it out at all? If they already know, why don't they just type it? Also, do YOU know for certain *how* they check it? Do you know where, using what resources? I'm sorry, but this still sounds like truth by popular vote. I highly doubt the people who run that website have money dedicated to staff spending their days in a real library. So you're basically asking me to believe Internet truth referenced by more Internet truth. There is no possible way many of the "facts" I've seen posted can be verified over the net with any accuracy.
2007-08-10 09:49:15 · update #2
To Somily K; how do you know the person who writes it knows what they're talking about? Do you actually check each page? Or do you simply trust that Wikipedia would take it down if it were untrue? We all know plenty of people who believe they know a thing or two about subjects they really have no accurate information on at all. If they post a page about it, it's posted. Even if someone "checks" it, if it's a popular belief, everyone will agree with the "truth" of it and it will stay up, waiting for people like you who are willing to take this as fact to read it and pass it on.
If someone thought the moon was made out of blue cheese, and everyone who "checked" that article believed that old saying, it would stay up. Popular vote would insure that this ridiculous idea would be circulated. The worst crime of this is that BECAUSE everyone supports this website, it gains a sort of fake legitimacy, making it harder to question.
I just can't agree with urban legend knowledge as "truth".
2007-08-10 09:54:10 · update #3
Excellent point, although the folks at Wikipedia are concerned about the truth in their postings and especially concerned about the possibility of libelous postings, they are open to all kinds of error and corruption so should absolutely not be your sole reference
I have found egregious postings on Wikipedia and they were quite prompt in making corrections as well as watching and blocking questionable postings
2007-08-10 09:10:52 · answer #1 · answered by Kathi 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
People ask obvious questions. Why should we type 500 words to explain something we learned 40 years ago when we can just point them to a well written article on the subject? Most of the articles on Wikipedia are well written and contain good basic information on the subject in question.
Now, to be clear, I'm defending references to Wikipedia rather than cutting and pasting. I don't believe in stealing, just helping people find the answers.
No one is "staking their intelligence" on their answer here. But when someone asks a factual questions like "What is term life insurance?" why should I type 500 words when Wikipedia already has 2000 carefully chosen words on the subject?
2007-08-10 09:10:56 · answer #2 · answered by hottotrot1_usa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia does hold up its credibility on most things. They list references and they have an incredible rate for correcting any mistakes of false information. If you don't believe me, go and edit a page and see how long it takes to be corrected.
I believe wikipedia to be much more credible than googling and hoping for a correct answer somewhere amongst the results.
And yes, some people and way too lazy to summarize or give opinions... just as alot of people who post are way too lazy to find the answer themselves on a site like wikipedia!
2007-08-10 09:12:27 · answer #3 · answered by mbschlosser 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
True - while wikipedia isn't the "be-all-end-all" source of knowledge, it's not a bad reference point for some information - and there are usually cited references to back up the "good" information.
It's a decent source of pop-culture information and some basic factoids - but I wouldn't take it as "gospel" until I'd done further research elsewhere.
2007-08-10 09:10:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's right. You see the person creating the page knows what they are talking about. Then, people go into the writing and they add things. If something is wrong then people can fix it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia. It is against the law if you write what it says on wikipedia and then don't give it credit.
2007-08-10 09:14:45 · answer #5 · answered by Somily K 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's why whenever I see an answer using wikipedia as a source I automatically give it a thumbs-down. You don't even have to give your name in order to alter a wikipedia article! In fact, every teacher I've ever had will automatically fail any paper that cites wikipedia.
2007-08-10 09:10:05 · answer #6 · answered by The Electro Ferret 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wikipedia is a brilliant source to get the information you want. However, vandals are there. But thanks to the users vandalism on a page is deleted within the first 2 minuets of it's post. Also, they block IP Addresses.
2007-08-10 09:13:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Wikipedia CHECKS the information that people input into it. If it is false, then it wouldn't be on there.
2007-08-10 09:45:16 · answer #8 · answered by o0lilazndemon0o 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Whatever source you use has the potential to be wrong. Remember when they said the world was flat? There is only one source of absolute truth - the Bible.
j
2007-08-10 09:15:06 · answer #9 · answered by The man 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you cut and paste it into a essay or paper and don't cite your resources that is called plagiarism isn't it?
2007-08-10 09:09:38 · answer #10 · answered by Jenn M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋