How Much do you Trust Wikipedia?

[tthor]

I trust it quite a bit, i have yet to see anything that appears wrong on the site, (well, except for about 3 years ago when the page on Albert Einstein said he invented flavored condoms, but that was a long time ago)
really, anyone who does enough research to write up a highly detailed paper on things probably has the majority of their facts straight

For every moron hoping to screw with Wikipedia, there are hundreds of fanboys per page constantly roaming the site to fix it. I trust it a lot.

God bless the fanboys! if not for them and their lack of lives, we wouldn't have the gem that is wikipedia!
Fanboys, i solute you!

 

[Random Argument Man]

I check wikipedia when I'm checking for films. I don't use it for university because they said they would give a 0 if I did.

Other than that, I use it to give me some general ideas about certain subjects.

 

[freakonaleash]

almost completely...but there is alot of bias on it

 

[Yureina]

I trust wikipedia to give me a basic overview when I am doing a quick search, but I would never for a moment use that website as a source for a research project, especially for a class.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

Encyclopaedia Britannica was useless. What a waste of gigabytes. If you put crap on Wiki, it will be weeded out by the Obsessive compulsive public. It is more reliable than almost every text-book that is more than ten years old. Wikipedia updates itself, paper doesn't.

I find it brilliant for astronomy. And there was a major factual error in one of my Geography books, and then they ask it as an exam question! WTF?!

Book: Our moon [sup]blah blah blah [/sup] And it is also the largest moon in our solar system.

The Fuck? This is what the text book says. If you have learnt more than four hours of astronomy in your life, you will know that this is wrong. It is Ganymede! There are other moons larger than ours as well. Callisto, Titan, Triton are all also larger. Damn schools and them not taking source material from places who know what the fuck is going on./rant

I'm just glad I'm on holiday.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

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

Second post in a thread, and already I agree. On any non-obscure topic, wikipedia is very reliable, since any flaws will be addressed quickly. And by non-obscure, I mean any topic other than the language fail that was esperanto.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Well, it's alright for keeping track of scientific and mathematical knowledge. Although it's quite shit for most of everything else.

 

[neurohazzard]

Wikipedia: It's not always right, it's just always 'right now'

 

[laststandman]

I trust it with my schoolwork. Then I find other sites to use as a false bibliography.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

I trust it, and even if there were mistakes, they usually aren't obvious and are fixed immediately.

 

[cryogeist]

i dont trust it at all since any one can edit it -_-

 

[nicholaxxx]

I only use it to start research for a project or something, once I get a basic Idea about something, I look up more to verify it's truth.

 

[Mopbucket]

I absolutely do not trust it for anything. Sure, some articles are decent, but I've read many that are patently false in every detail. I've checked the sources, and often times the books cited (if they even exist) do not even contain any of the information claimed! There are cites to anonymously-written web pages that haven't been updated since the early 90s, and other unpublished work. The worst thing is, people who are not familiar with research or scholarly writing take for granted that anything that is written and cited is true, when it's absolutely not the case.

I'd only really trust something with multiple, published, respected sources. However, just to put it in perspective: I would trust a rumor heard through the grapevine, writing in a bathroom stall, or the rantings of a lunatic more than Wikipedia. It is worse than useless, because it deliberately spreads disinformation. Yet people still use it, and god only knows why.

 

[Trebort]

It depends how much you trust the "experts" wikipedia have who edit content that the general public add to the site.

Personally I like it, thought I would not take the information on the site as gospel.

 

[zHellas]

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

Pretty much this for me. Thanks for the ninja, Marter!

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

I actually had an Argument with someone over this on a forum recently, Over at the gamespot system wars forum someone actually told me not to use wikipedia and facts in the same sentence.

My reply to them was simply to make up and quote a internet fact.
Internet fact# 9593943: Wikipedia is all ways wrong, even when its information is common knowledge if its Wikipedia them its wrong, even when the information contained therein is based upon sources that are factual such as press releases, and quotes then it is all ways wrong...because its Wikipedia...If Wikipedia says the sky is blue then the sky is actually black.

Wikipedia can be trusted in any thing else that can be trusted If the information contained is supported by evidence such as sources of information...to actually think a regular dictionary or place of information couldn't be wrong compared to Wikipedia just because its on the internet is just silly...Every thing can be wrong when it comes to places of massed information what matters is whether that information is backed up by evidence.

so I trust Wikipedia very much as long as sources are given to particular information at the bottom of the page.

 

[Neuromaster]

Personally, I believe everything I read on the internet.

 

[PolarBearClub]

If you ever read the discussion section of an article you can see how much goes into keeping each well moderated. Any college of course I've ever taken has said to never quote from Wikipedia, but as a starting point it can be quite useful.

Also, when I find something new out these days or hear something interesting, I'll head to Wikipedia to find out more, and then get distracted by all the other links.