Do you trust wikipedia for you research?

Answer 1

Not really. We don't know everything about all the facts. If any info is wrong about a matter that I don't understand very much, or nothing at all, I will not benefit from it and pass along the wrong info. For sure you cannot rely on it for documents and school research.

Answer 2

I consider Wikipedia, "a good start."

When I am working on a project or answering a Yahoo question, I often check things there first. I would say, for the most part, it's accurate. However, generally I check to see if the person has cited sources and I will go to the original to make a more accurate assessment of the Wikipedia information.

I do find that many of the contributors are highly skilled: the better the grammar and the citations, the more accurate the entry.

Answer 3

Often yes, but often no.

In many areas Wikipedia articles are accurate enough, and sometimes very accurate, the articles having been written by top experts.

According to the results of a recent investigation published in the prestigious journal, Nature, Wikipedia's accuracy -- at least in the field of science -- is comparable with that of the online Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Interestingly, Britannica has published a forceful rebuttal of that Nature investigation which it labelled "sloppy" (see BBC News source below).

However, there are undoubtedly serious problems with Wikipedia's accuracy and balance when it comes to controversial topics, including those of a political nature.

The problem is that there is a group of people with barrows to push who keep editing the text of articles to reflect only their own views and prejudices. In addition, they often delete external links to websites which they do not like.

Sometimes, not always, Wikipedia admins may freeze the editing process on these articles or edit the articles to give a more accurate version of the facts.

But this is often too late as the earlier versions of the articles with their disinformation (and not unusually, what is worse, lies) have been copied or scraped by dozens of other websites across the Internet which never later get around to editing out the disinformation.

Thus the same disinformation spreads across numerous sites, comes up repeatedly in Google's search results pages, and thus seems to be the truth to the many people who do not have the time or energy to research further.

An interesting study of this and similar problems with Wikipedia is to be found on the website, Wikipedia Watch.

Answer 4

Absolutely ... as a place to begin. There is no better site on the Internet that covers all of the basics of an issue and there are a lot of people out there who make sure it is fairly accurate. It is not 100% accurate and you may hit a page on the very day some twerp decides to change the information and before it is corrected, so always verify the information with at least two-three other sources, which also could be from the Internet.
As Pres. Reagan suggested: "Trust, but verify"

Answer 5

I use it quite regularly and find it to be fairly accurate most of the time...there are exceptions, however. I am a New Yorker who has lived most of my life in and around Elmira, NY. Imagine my surprise to find that according to one contributor to Wikipedia, The State Correctional Facility at Elmira was built on the site of the Civil War Prison Camp! (FYI, it wasn't; the prison camp was built in what is now West Elmira near the Chemung River. The State Correctional Facility is several miles north, near the village of Elmira Heights). So let the researcher beware :)

Answer 6

It is helpful, and, as many people have said, a good start. But to trust it for your research: No. It is very uneven in its coverage and cannot be a substitute for substantiated, documented, informed expert research.
While I appreciate my son-in-law very much, and he is a very informed baseball enthusiast, the fact that he contributed the piece on Babe Ruth, would cause me to question the validity of Wikipedia being used for conclusive research results.

Answer 7

Sure, 'Wiki' is okay (isn't it?)...
I trust it alright--I just wouldn't call my research complete using that one tool. Unless I was in a hurry and it didn't matter overly much, then maybe I'd go with just that.

When I am truly researching a topic, I use all kinds of resources...lots of encyclopedias, books, magazines, newspapers, commentaries, targeted TV and/or radio...even little questionnaires I might ask my friends! In other words, I try to find everything there is out there that is available to me before I call the research done.

Answer 8

No. (Wikipedia is a instruction manual, no longer a resource) i've got been in college for over 2 years now... for the reason that highschool I actual have had instructors/professors tell me to no longer use Wikipedia as a resource. they say you ought to use IT AS A instruction manual basically!! ...look on the backside of Wikipedia to discover the materials to the pages and flow to the information superhighway website, examine the articles, and use those pages as materials! i've got in no way had a professor or instructor tell me it that's okay to apply Wikipedia as a resource. For the sake of your grade... use the authentic materials!

Answer 9

I use to get an idea for where to begin. I hardly trust it, and only use to create an outline to help guide my actual research using better sources.

Answer 10

Not at all, but then again I rarely even trust history to be fact. I see it more as legends based in reality.