I trust it up to 95% completely. I used it for my final for my AP Euro Hist. Class (And I had to have a bibliography) and got a 97% on it.
How Much do you Trust Wikipedia?
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oddly enough the more complex the subject matter the more I trust it. My quantum physics teacher uses it all the time, I think it's becuase no one bothers screwing with the hard stuff.
Most of the points I thought of have been mentioned, so won't rehash those.
All I'll say is that the more important pages will typically have more people checking and editing them, so they can be expected to be fairly accurate.
The problem though is with the less important ones, since less people will check for facts/general info/vandalism/etc.
So you can be pretty sure about the article on Stephen Colbert or Star Wars/Trek, but, for example, the stuff in the article on 'Potiguara language' could be half made up gibberish that will stay that way for five months.
All I'll say is that the more important pages will typically have more people checking and editing them, so they can be expected to be fairly accurate.
The problem though is with the less important ones, since less people will check for facts/general info/vandalism/etc.
So you can be pretty sure about the article on Stephen Colbert or Star Wars/Trek, but, for example, the stuff in the article on 'Potiguara language' could be half made up gibberish that will stay that way for five months.
As they'll teach you in any reputable college or university, the Wikipedia is far from a peer-reviewed source, and everything on there should be regarded with healthy skepticism. However, it is valuable at least for finding a starting point to do research, as it usually has a good generalist summary of the subject matter at hand as well as some links to some supporting resources that may be more reputable than the Wikipedia article itself.
I trust it for quick reference. If I need information for research, though, I'll find it elsewhere. Or I'll find it on Wikipedia and verify it with other sources. Wikipedia usually has sources in it as well, so I'll go to those.
I generally trust it, especially for getting the big, general picture of a particular topic.
The details, not as much, but I still trust it. For the more controversial ones, or anything that isn't cited, I take it lightly and check other sits or the sources to confirm it.
The details, not as much, but I still trust it. For the more controversial ones, or anything that isn't cited, I take it lightly and check other sits or the sources to confirm it.
I trust it a whole lot, I don't give it 100% credit however.
But for projects I usually check multiple websites, and usually use Wikipedia as my first.
But for projects I usually check multiple websites, and usually use Wikipedia as my first.
I trust the wikipedia a lot, they have tons of references and usually when someone messes with a page it's extremely obvious. It also seems that just because its on the internet it can't be trusted...well just because an encyclopedia is written on paper doesn't mean it's 100% correct.
I trust wikipedia more than any other source, because unlike every other source, Wikipedia is heavily moderated by anybody. I could start my own website and start posting slanderous bullshit all over the place and there wouldn't be any moderators or viewers with editing power to fix what I say. Saying "Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information because anyone can change it" is a bit like saying "Democracy is an unreliable system of government because anyone can vote."
There's a sociological term for that... groupthink and mob mentality would be the closest colloquial terms.interspark said:
Also, those billion "squillion" people aren't all editing every article, or watching them either. All of those people, however, are under the protection of anonymity, and can post false information without consequence. As [a href='http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/215499488_8pSZr-L-2.jpg']John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory[/a] demonstrates, good people are more likely to go bad on the internet.
As for my usage; I'll use it for random, useless, inconsequential trivia, or to remember something I still have enough of a grasp on to know what is bullshit. If I really need to know, I might check a reference.
Well, trust it or not, my teachers bought it. Used wiki for 90% of my history assignment on Iran and something to do with immigrants. Got an overall grade of B for that. For my bibliography, I just used references that were used to make the wiki page. So obviously, its good enough to pose as a really realiable source.
As for trusting the site itself, I realise it has ALOT of false info such as an actor (forgot who) who got interviewed and mentiond how wiki had a page on him and stated information that wasnt even true, such as going to a school that he never heard of.
As for trusting the site itself, I realise it has ALOT of false info such as an actor (forgot who) who got interviewed and mentiond how wiki had a page on him and stated information that wasnt even true, such as going to a school that he never heard of.
I've only found one mistake as of yet, and it was pretty obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garage_Inc.
Go down to the writers for Whiskey in a Jar. Quite funny though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garage_Inc.
Go down to the writers for Whiskey in a Jar. Quite funny though.
Wikipedia is too liberal for me. I only trust Conservapedia, it's the home of true moronic scholarly research.
I love Wikipedia. There has never been a day in my life (since I found Wikipedia) that I have not Wikied something.