Anybody can add or delete from Wikipedia as they want and the information is not always accurate. That is why at University we are not allowed to use wikipedia and if a student uses wikipedia as a source, the assignment is not accepted. In my opinion, Wikipedia is not trusted. I can create an account now add whatever information I want. You can do that too!
Do you all trust Wikipedia?
2007-12-17 04:54:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel ➔ Africa & Middle East ➔ Israel
Same here
h
Eid Mubarak to you too.
Salaam
2007-12-17 06:06:51 · update #1
I trust it more then many other sources
because it gives citations and writes on the top of each article a reference and says if the reference is disputed by any side.
I trust encyclopedia's more then newspapers because they are usually written by the crossing and examining and connection of many sources and not only 1 as newspapers do
btw wikipedia is edited and approved and any1 can write anything but the only one's who get written are one's with accurate reliable sources and the editors of wikipedia have a very hard job checking them and I think they do a good job and are fair to all sides, becuase they also give write opinions of sides and they also give later the objective evidence as collected
2007-12-17 05:18:55 · answer #1 · answered by hamarker 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I generally do trust Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. It does seem like many articles relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict and Mid East history n' what not have tags at the beginning of the article which read: The factual accuracy of this article is disputed or The neutrality of this article is disputed, or what not. It's true, some people will vandalize Wikipedia articles(purposefully write false or hateful stuff). But, remember, Wikipedia has many, many responsible users, and usually they will spot such rubbish and delete it in a day or too. Also, some articles which may be prone to vandalism, will be locked. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but I still think it's a damn useful learning resource tool.
2007-12-17 17:57:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You would need to show that there is a need for it. If you look at the sections listed under travel, not every country or territory is given it's own section. YA wont open up a new section if there's only going to be a few posters. You could make a direct appeal to the powers that be, but you'd have to put up evidence that there would be enough interest. Maybe start a petition on Facebook for YA users and advertise it on different forums on YA. If you generate enough interest then the Yahoo powers might listen.
2016-05-24 08:55:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what you mean by "not trusted".
If by "not trusted" you mean "information may be inaccurate or rendered inaccurate due to the political bias of the author" then of course its not to be trusted. Everybody knows this about Wikipedia and nobody claims otherwise.
As far as research is concerned, its a great "jumping off" point.
And when I started University, Gopher was on its way out and this new-ish thing called the World Wide Web with Mosaic was all the rage. Yahoo was still hosted at Stamford U (if I recall correctly). None of this Wiki stuff for us. And that's the way we liked it! :)
2007-12-17 13:20:24 · answer #4 · answered by BMCR 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well any Arab makes/gives an explanation to what is happening and that should be good, like on one of the fabricated clips that came out of Gaza a child that died of a lung complication was brought forth as if killed by an Israeli sniper, I spent much time in the Gaza and the West Bank and in Jerusalem, no matter what happens there is always an Arab taking pictures one might think these vids and pictures are fabricated (ha ha ha), isn't it strange that Israeli snipers never shoot these photographers I would, but then again they are mostly fabricated vids so snipers don't and cant see the news makers
Wikipedia is mostly a reliable site
2007-12-17 08:29:55 · answer #5 · answered by Shay p 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is a source, but not one that can be fully trusted. In truth, no source can be fully trusted, and wikipedia is no different.
2007-12-17 06:12:49 · answer #6 · answered by Michael J 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I only use wikipedia as a source for answering questions when I know the information is factual and I am not interested in writing a lengthy answer myself.
Good Luck!!!
2007-12-17 08:18:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I only trust Wiki up to a certain extend because it can be changed. I like to build up my own opinion by getting different sources, opinions and personal experience.
If you would like to get figures about a country, wiki is fine. But as soon as it comes to political issuses I would not trust it at all. There are other sources available which can be used.
Take care. Eid Mubarak!
2007-12-17 06:02:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
i trust wikipedia most of the time
2007-12-17 06:11:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I do NOT trust Wikipedia. But, I find it an invaluable starting source to help me determine where, what I might use for further collaboration.
2007-12-17 05:03:34 · answer #10 · answered by Robert S 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋