How Much do you Trust Wikipedia?

[Emz]

That only makes sense in the context that even though a lot of what Wikipedia says is wrong, it still has more total information (with maybe 80% being right) than Encyclopedia Britannica. But I doubt the ratio of correct to total is better.

Well, that is just what I read somewhere (sorry cannot remember where.)

I trusted it anyway regardless. I usually double check information I use from at least 3 sources to try and ensure it is accurate (though obviously, that is pretty flawed still but it's just what I do.)

 

[superbatranger]

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.

I remember one of my friends decided to see if he could edit an article and insert something false in it. We found out Wikipedia had removed the false information within the hour. They really do moderate the articles looking for anything out of place. It's serious business. And, yea I trust it enough to know that the majority of the time, the information given is correct.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

I trust it to be accurate, which when I consult particular experts on the subject, becomes a debatable truth, but I still like it, cause even if it doesn't fully understand the ideas, it still introduces me to them, and I appreciate wikipeds very much for that.

WIKIPEDS!!!!!1214321$!354%$#@%!!!!!!!

 

[Tarakos]

It gets more shit than it deserves frankly. Teachers hear it can be edited by anyone and fail to realize that erroneous information is fixed within seconds. I trust it completely and wish it was allowed to be cited in school. Would make reports much much easier.

 

[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.

I remember one of my friends decided to see if he could edit an article and insert something false in it. We found out Wikipedia had removed the false information within the hour. They really do moderate the articles looking for anything out of place. It's serious business. And, yea I trust it enough to know that the majority of the time, the information given is correct.

Yea.
Also if the article is going to take some heavy editing to correct they usually lock it down while editing it.
They really do want to keep it as factual as possible.
Though sometimes the False Edits lead to some funny things.

Like Diabetus.

 

[K_Dub]

Over the years Wikipedia has become much more sourceful and accurate with its information. That said, I still don't trust it 100%. I use it as more of a jumping off point.

 

[steampunk42]

way more then i should...i think i used it as a reference like twenty times in one of my term papers senier year

 

[superbatranger]

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.

I remember one of my friends decided to see if he could edit an article and insert something false in it. We found out Wikipedia had removed the false information within the hour. They really do moderate the articles looking for anything out of place. It's serious business. And, yea I trust it enough to know that the majority of the time, the information given is correct.

Yea.
Also if the article is going to take some heavy editing to correct they usually lock it down while editing it.
They really do want to keep it as factual as possible.
Though sometimes the False Edits lead to some funny things.

Like Diabetus.

Yea, they usually lock articles that have been wrongfully edited several times. Speaking of Diabetus, I remember seeing an edit a while back. It made me laugh so hard...but I can't remember what it was.

 

[Zap Rowsdower]

I once found the page for the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec and replaced every mention of "Chateau Frontenac" with "Bill Cosby". It was fixed in about 20 minutes.

 

[capin Rob]

not much, but unless it's rediclous post on somting it's legit. It's not like someone will edit it so it's off by a little, they go on and edit it so it'll say,. "FUCK OFF TWAT!" when you view it

 

[neoontime]

Hmm, if there was a wiki of me and it said I was gay, I'd probably accept it.
THAT"S HOW BADLY I TRUST IT!

 

[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.

I remember one of my friends decided to see if he could edit an article and insert something false in it. We found out Wikipedia had removed the false information within the hour. They really do moderate the articles looking for anything out of place. It's serious business. And, yea I trust it enough to know that the majority of the time, the information given is correct.

Yea.
Also if the article is going to take some heavy editing to correct they usually lock it down while editing it.
They really do want to keep it as factual as possible.
Though sometimes the False Edits lead to some funny things.

Like Diabetus.

Yea, they usually lock articles that have been wrongfully edited several times. Speaking of Diabetus, I remember seeing an edit a while back. It made me laugh so hard...but I can't remember what it was.

I remember a friend telling me that one Article said the guy who does those commercials was actually a Alien who was sent to Earth to Spread Diabetus through Diabetus Awareness Commercials.
It made no sense and yet was on of the funniest things i have ever heard.

 

[Shapsters]

I trust it quite a lot. If there are mistakes, they tend to get fixed quite quickly, and are usually very obvious.

Exactly, when people intentionally write wrong info its usually very obvious. I really hate when people say not to use Wiki because it can't be trusted, unless I am using some government run website what CAN be trusted on the internet? Nothing.

 

[TK421]

Eeh... Not really. I trust it for some things, but not for papers and whatnot.

 

[Scizophrenic Llama]

I don't trust it, which is why when I use it I only use the information that has a cited source.

 

[Crimson King]

I trust Wikipedia since they claim to, and have proven that they screen the information users put on there before they let it loose on the public site as tangible canon.

An example would be a case where I happened upon the Wikipedia page for Danny Carey, the drummer for the band Tool. One of the sections was titled "Geometric Design" and talked about how Carey had assembled his drumset to fit the design of some ritualistic symbol. Beneath that however, was a section called "Geometric Design 2" which had a short, poorly typed paragraph praising Carey's intelligence, playing abilities, and sexiness.

Surely enough, it was gone within the hour, but I'm sure they have tougher cases than that.

 

[WorldCritic]

I trust it more than most sites. I especially trust the articles that I edit.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I tend to trust it more than others. If you notice that people have to source their materials and quite a bit of it needs factual information for a basis of topic. However, it is sad that schools such as colleges do not accept wikipedia as a basis and will often fail your assignment if you use it for information.

Never use Wikipedia in your reference section for a paper. However, with that said, use Wikipedia to shamelessly find links to actual scholarly papers and "official" sites/sources. It was always a useful starting platform for me.

 

[Snarky Username]

The thing about Wikipedia is that you can usually tell when the info is false. When you see "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 15, 1865 and Zach Smith has an incredibly tiny penis" you can pretty much assume that part of that statement is false. Also, for every troll there are 10 little wiki-elves beating the shit out of them with their knowledge. That being said, if I actually have to rely on a piece of info instead of just looking something up for my own knowledge, I use the citations.

The editing thing has led to some very funny events though.

Spoiler: Long story

I got in an argument with a couple of girls at my table about how the pentagram was originally a Christian symbol representing the five wounds of Jesus Christ (it was) so to prove my point, I highlighted the part that validated my point, but I also did some editing. I took it to her the next day and asked her to read it. It said something along the lines of "The pentagram was originally a Christian symbol representing the five wounds of Jesus Christ, and Danielle, if you look to your right, Cory is probably making a crude gesture telling you to "Suck It." When she looked I made the "suck it" gesture and walked away. Oh the laughs we had!