why or why not choose wikipedia as a reliable source of information related to history.
Is it correct to assume the most of the information on Wikipedia is true and unbiased.
2007-09-15 20:54:58 · 16 answers · asked by Guess who 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Using anonymous user contributions and user editing means that Wikipedia is notoriously wide-open to biased contributions.
Recently, the Wikipedia entries on many corporations, institutions and individuals were found to have been edited to make the entries more favorable to those corporations, institutions and individuals. (See Wikiscanner and Wired sources below.)
So use Wikipedia as one of your online references but **never** completely trust it. Always check other websites too. Also go to your library and read some books and journals.
2007-09-15 22:31:23 · answer #1 · answered by historybuff 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
In general, always check information from wikipedia with a second source. Most teachers do not allow wikipedia to be used as a resource, but in my experience, wikipedia is a great starting point because you can get an overview and links to more information generally.
2016-05-20 23:16:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, do not trust it. It is not reliable.
As far as a source of historical information, Wikipedia can, in Dan K's words, be biased and totally wrong. I saw that for myself when I read some information about Nicaragua. About four weeks ago, I read how a person had traced the editors of certain Wikipedia pages to both the CIA and the Vatican. To me it made a lot of sense - since it is still in the CIA (and the Vatican's) interests to deny the revolution and democratic elections of the Sandinistas (FSLN) in Nicaragua.
2007-09-15 21:46:03 · answer #3 · answered by WMD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You refer to Wikipedia specifically in respect to history. Now whilst I would not disagree with many of the answers given before, you have to remember that much history information both in books and on line is biased. One only has to think about David Irving and the Holocaust! You have to go back to original sources (but even those may be biased!). I also think that it does depend on the information you seek - if you want the dates of US Presidents or English monarchs, then wiki is going to be as good as anything. The bias comes in on the evaluation of those Presidents/Monarchs.
2007-09-15 22:09:11 · answer #4 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is a web-based, user-edited site. Most institutions will not accept it as a valid source. Despite that most information is accurate, it's not a credited source because someone in authority did not personally write typically. But most articles have sources which you can follow and use for information, so really it is a great way to find other sources and take your research from there and expand past a google search.
2007-09-15 21:01:25 · answer #5 · answered by jel_meowfacekiller 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I use Wikipedia as a jumping off source.
NEVER CITE IT AS A RESOURCE IN A RESEARCH PAPER.
Always double check any fact (from any source) with two other references and never rely on complete truth and unbiased reality on Wikipedia. It is good, but not perfect. Check Snopes.com for anything that sounds too good to be true.
2007-09-15 21:04:38 · answer #6 · answered by soxrcat 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The smart thing is to use as "one" of the sources of informations and not to rely on it as the only one. By the way it's my belief that most history sources are not 100% reliable, it's human nature to modify stories, either consciously or unconsciously, it's easy to see examples in your everyday life.
2007-09-15 22:59:26 · answer #7 · answered by jczapa7 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its very good when the subject is not controversial - dates, basic facts etc.
If the subject is more interpretive, or subjective information is usually very conventional in its approach - you'll generally find the US or British view.
If you're looking up anything recent - from around 1900 or so - its often one-sided.
However all history writing carries the biases and opinions of its writer - and is coloured by his cultural and linguistic viewpoint.
2007-09-16 00:22:49 · answer #8 · answered by no_bloody_ids_available 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
My personal opinion is that, generally, wikipedia is reliable source of info for personal use. However, due to its policy of allowing people to edit its info anyway they want, some disputed info can be biased, and even totally wrong.
2007-09-15 21:02:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
NO...do not use it as a solid reference. Maybe it's a starting point but double check anything you read on Wikipedia. If you're thinking of using for research on a school project, don't. It's unreliable. If you intend to use it on a forum, prepare to get flamed.
2007-09-15 21:00:06 · answer #10 · answered by jehovah_nostra 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋