How Much do you Trust Wikipedia?

[interspark]

i most certainly wouldnt have passed my college course if it werent for wikipedia, hmm yeah! maybe ill use books to find a compaison of the skeletal systems of a lion and an elephant (admittadly i couldnt find one on the internet either but the point still stands!)

 

[Matt_LRR]

Wikipedia has been proven to be pretty reliable. I remember one essay question from when I took the PSATs that talked about Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. The essay claimed that Wikipedia was as accurate (If not more) as Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't know how true that essay was, but it fueled my faith in it.

The typical assessment I've read is that wiki is about 98% as accurate as Brittanica, article to article, but covers a vastly larger array of knowledge.

So wiki is actually a better source of information on the whole, though an academic encyclopedia is marginally more precise.

-m

 

[wkrepelin]

Wikipedia has been shown to be more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica . . . wait a second, is that a quote from Wikipedia? Just kidding, it really has.

It's especially good for math, science, professional interests and stuff with a large fan following. It's much more descriptive than an offline source.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I've used Wikipedia since 8th grade, and so far it's only been wrong twice.

 

[Necromancer1991]

When it comes to wikipedia, I trust it when I want to know an answer to a question or something minor, when it comes to really important info, not so much.

 

[PoliceBox63]

It's pretty on the bob imo but I wouldn't go to it for important data I needed, say for a project.

 

[chinangel]

it's the first place I go for information generally.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Wikipedia is the most accurate source of information on the internet. [sup][citation needed][/sup]
Seriously, I have no reason to distrust it. I have faith that Jimbo knows that any kind of accuracy scandal will haunt the site forever.

 

[Shock and Awe]

The only thing I don't trust are the details, usually the general things in articles are very accurate, but details are not to be trusted.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

I think it is a viable source of information. I trust it. Usually, if what you see there isn't fact, it is easy to spot and you can correct it. All those people who complain about it should look up an article on Wiki and then on a .org and see that the articles are mostly identical in information.

 

[Continuity]

meh imo those who come up with the generic "you can't trust wikipedia, anyone can edit it!" comments really don't understand wikipedia, the internet, or the modern information age. Wikipedia is awesome, I'm not saying I take it as gospel truth but then you'd have to be a damn fool to take any information source as infallible.

 

[Gigaguy64]

I trust it quite a bit.
But im always weary of the articles.
Its usually corrected pretty quickly if something is wrong but sometimes things just slip through.

 

[maninahat]

I trust it, though I make the point of checking the citations if I am going to ever rely on their facts for anything. If it is something related to a current political issue (and therefor subject to revision every five minutes), I tend to be lest trusting.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Well... accuracy scandals sort of have haunted the site forever...

But on a low-key, jokey level. As far as I know, nobody has died or lost huge amounts of money from trusting a Wikipedia article.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I trust them for general answers and such, if I wanted to study a topic extensively I'd use primary sources and academic papers.

 

[thunderbug]

i trust wikipedia alot, maybe out of hope, as the infomation contained in its glorious user edited pages was the basis for nearly all my college work

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

It has just as high an accuracy percentage as Encyclopedia Britannica, so I trust it quite a bit.

 

[Digikid]

I don't trust the Internet in general.

Ditto. THere is a lot that is just plain wrong online.