2007-11-24 16:45:15 · 12 answers · asked by Love #me#, Hate #me# 6 in Food & Drink ➔ Vegetarian & Vegan
The reason I ask is because a certain highly venomous regular called me a "dipshit" for pointing out to her that wikipedia is not an intelligent choice as a source, right after she referred to someone as being simple minded.
Interesting that I just checked the question and the person has removed their comment.
2007-11-25 03:20:59 · update #1
Jena---yes please do report me and you'll find out that it's not a violation because it's not insulting anyone, as you did.
2007-11-25 05:52:52 · update #2
Jena---sorry Jena I won't be baited like that. It's an interesting turn by you considering the other answers to this question disagree with your assessment of wikipedia.
Thank you for posting the link but I wasn't interested in calling you out by name. I just wanted to show you that most people don't think wikipedia is credible.
I'm sorry you have to lower yourself with your post here.
I didn't say it was you and I didn't post a link to the question because I didn't care to let people see it was you. But everything happened as I described it and I'm not surprised with your failed attempt at condescension here.
You'd have been better off taking the 5th.
2007-11-25 06:04:55 · update #3
Jena---anything you don't agree with is a troll.
2007-11-25 06:08:19 · update #4
BTW---yes, you CAN delete comments after a best answer is chosen so I can only guess what you're up to with that.
2007-11-25 06:41:26 · update #5
BTW---yes, you CAN delete comments after a best answer is chosen so I can only guess what you're up to with that.
2007-11-25 06:43:03 · update #6
Now Jena's answer is gone from here too. I suppose I'll get blamed for that too!
2007-11-28 12:48:12 · update #7
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who has an account, so you can't always believe what you read on there.
2007-11-25 09:05:53 · answer #1 · answered by Gemz L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, wikipedia is the source of much mis-information.
Anyone who starts quoting it to me looses credibility in my opinion unless its just providing pure facts that are undisputable and where I don''t care about the outcome.
If i want a basic idea of what Canola Oil is, it'll do. There is nothing wrong with a quick look.
Having said that, i think i've been to that site about 10 times in my life. Most of those were related to people writing false information about my town. So that kinda proves the point that you want to avoid the site where there is any chance of someone holding another view.
I would never trust it to tell me what a vegetarian was, for example. Far too many people have thier own opinions rather than relying on proven definitions
Expert Moderated sources are best.
2007-11-25 22:08:25 · answer #2 · answered by Michael H 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. The fact that just about anyone can contribute information or edit the articles makes Wikipedia an unreliable source of information.
Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research. Leaders of Wikipedia have considered putting together a fact sheet that professors could give out to students explaining what Wikipedia is and that it is not always a definitive source.
It can be very useful, but you shouldn't rely on it's information, even on something as simple as canola oil.
2007-11-25 10:53:58 · answer #3 · answered by V 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When I looked at it the last time, I was satisfied with what it said.
But it depends. If you happen to get there right after somebody added a bunch of garbage that hasn't been checked out yet; then you might find bad information. But I'm pretty sure there will be footnotes that state it hasn't been verified.
I think Wikipedia is a lot better than a lot of people give it credit for. At least they keep updating the information--I have seen Encyclopedias that give bad information about certain things and it takes years for it to get updated; sometimes it doesn't get updated at all.
2007-11-25 04:24:09 · answer #4 · answered by majnun99 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is not always solid and credible, because anyone can edit the information. Best to stick with something that not every Tom, Dick and Harry can write the articles about...
2007-11-24 17:02:54 · answer #5 · answered by Tex 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Although anyone can edit wikipedia, you will find that there are people who oversee that the facts are right also you will notice that wikipedia articles contain refs to the information that is used in them.
2007-11-27 00:25:53 · answer #6 · answered by Mr Hex Vision 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not solid and credible for any information. However, it is a good source of background information for casual purposes, and it can help point you in the right direction so you know what you are looking for.
2007-11-24 17:52:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is not a solid and credible source for any information.
Useful? Yes. Solid and credible? Definitely not.
2007-11-24 17:23:41 · answer #8 · answered by ~♠♥CJ♥♠~ 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
they think interior the NYTimes, even nonetheless they have a background of misrepresenting the info of a narrative, such because of the fact the Russian Famine interior the 30's, and the rigors in Russia they suggested never happened, and their refusal to checklist on Hitler slaughtering Jews, because of the fact they did not desire to get into non secular affairs
2016-10-02 04:12:11 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
heck no.. a friend of mine submitted an autobiography about himself and his great "accomplishments". Wiki accepted until he admitted that all the info was false> it has since been removed. good for quick reference but not 100% reliable
2007-11-25 01:23:59 · answer #10 · answered by exsft 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋