2007-09-06 02:04:21 · 31 answers · asked by not_omniscient_enough 1 in Computers & Internet ➔ Internet ➔ Wikipedia
Absolutely not. It has too many errors.
It is useful as a starting point for research, but very much not definitive.
2007-09-06 02:06:51 · answer #1 · answered by David D 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Wikipedia has been referenced by governments in official reports (I believe one example is a debate the Canadian government had on Gay marriages) and I have heard that a study concluded that Wikipedia is more reliable than an encyclopedia, with the inevitable typing errors. The idea is that millions of eyes will correct any mistake, given enough time.
Compared to newspapers, Wikipedia is GOD!
As with anything under the sun, use your head and common sense! You will generally know if you are reading nonsense. And if you don't, someone else will, and correct it. If you don't believe what you read, check their sources. I often use Wikipedia as a link to other online resources.
2007-09-06 23:28:49 · answer #2 · answered by galloway.alex 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Canada did a study on Wikipedia and discovered that it's 99.8% accurate and no source is 100% accurate. So, I would trust it. However, most instructors haven't gotten wind of the fact that Wiki can be a reliable source of information. Therefore, I wouldn't say you've gotten info from Wiki. Best thing to do is use Wiki's "related links" click on those and put THEM in your bibliography.
2007-09-06 02:15:49 · answer #3 · answered by Ryan P 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is not much less authoritative that other encyclopedia, all of whom are written by fallible people. But I'd trust it as a starting point only. I'd put more trust if the article was properly referenced, and less if Wikipedia had put negative comments on it, like no references, someone challenged it, etc. But I'd check all its claims out by looking at other websites, including encyclopedic ones, and I'd also look in an old fashioned library.
2007-09-06 02:14:37 · answer #4 · answered by Always Hopeful 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In a way. This is how I use Wikipedia: I find an article on the thing I want, I find the section of the article I want, and then I look at the sources cited there.
But I wouldn't just go on what it says in the article.
2007-09-08 05:18:01 · answer #5 · answered by Lynn M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Despite what people say, wikipedia is a pretty reliable website. Go ahead and try vandalizing an article. the error will be fixed within 5 minutes and your IP will be blocked from editing wikipedia.
2007-09-07 03:34:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the subject. Most of wikipedia is very accurate. If you don't trust something look at the listed sources at the bottom of the page and check them out for yourself.
2007-09-06 02:08:51 · answer #7 · answered by Muley Bob 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
hell yes. wikipedia gets way too much negative publicity. there is occasional vandalism, but the upside of allowing anyone to edit is that the correct information is very correct (if that makes sense). In other words nonvandalised material would be even more reliable than at other sites. I have only once seen vandalism in an article and it was freaking obvious, so i knew it wasn't reliable.
2007-09-06 18:04:53 · answer #8 · answered by kreacher92 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I only trust Wikipedia on non-controversial issues relating to science, sports, geography, historic people, etc. If there is any controversy about someone historic you're not going to get trustworthy information. When people still commemorate a historic battle, you're not... etc. Living people often edit their own pages, ...
2007-09-07 22:43:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I probably would use Wikipedia.. they have an abundance of information and most of the time I have found the facts to be accurate.
2007-09-06 02:12:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I sometimes use Wikipedia for my famous people school reports.
2007-09-06 09:56:57 · answer #11 · answered by amin_hosni 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋