Poll: Do you use Wikipedia?

[Woem]

There's a big difference between using Wikipedia and using it as your (main) source of information and point of reference. I do use Wikipedia but I rarely use it as a point of reference when taking a stand or making a claim. I always check my sources [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.128113].

 

[Woem]

how do we know that anything posted on the internet is true?

I sense a conspiracy theory coming on : P, although you have a point. I know alot of people who get their facts wrong because they have read it off the internet where as I can pull out a book that proves them wrong.

I normally go straight to wikipedia, read the introduction to get an idea then search around the net and look for common information, so then I know it is true. Too many times have I visited a website and its 'facts' have been wrong.

It's not so much a conspiracy as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It has happened so many times that a journal took information from Wikipedia and printed it in an article, after which the Wikipedia article stated said journal as a source for the information. It's like the perfect information crime.

 

[MagicShroom]

how do we know that anything posted on the internet is true?

There is a critical thinking rule about something like that and it goes like

"Never fully believe a statement, but never fully disregard it either."

 

[SeventySeven]

how do we know that anything posted on the internet is true?

I sense a conspiracy theory coming on : P, although you have a point. I know alot of people who get their facts wrong because they have read it off the internet where as I can pull out a book that proves them wrong.

I normally go straight to wikipedia, read the introduction to get an idea then search around the net and look for common information, so then I know it is true. Too many times have I visited a website and its 'facts' have been wrong.

It's not so much a conspiracy as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It has happened so many times that a journal took information from Wikipedia and printed it in an article, after which the Wikipedia article stated said journal as a source for the information. It's like the perfect information crime.

gaah, a loop. My teachers have always told me to go to wikipedia and use the references for information, however I never liked the idea for that reason and also you can find a perfectly decent website normally.

I geuss also the whole 'edited by people' thing would cause a lot of problems too.
People like to think they know more than the actually know.

 

[MatumbeJack]

Wikipedia is at best a secondary reference tool to be used after you have a couple of good sources.
Wikipedia by itself is not a reference tool. When a good academic university, or even my local community college allow it's use as a reference tool, I'll call it one.

Er.

Wikipedia is, by virtue of being an encyclopedia, a reference tool, irrespective of what 'good academic universities' (whatever that may mean) decide. The information contained within is consolidated from a variety of sources which, most often, sit humbly at the bottom of the page.

It's a bunch of information crammed into one place. Some of it's good, some of it's bad - but its left up to you as the researcher to assess its credibility by investigating the cited source. If you can't do that, you don't know how to research to begin with.

 

[Kajt]

If I wanna be quick, I use wikipedia. If I'm really interested in the subject, I don't.

This, pretty much. I turn to a book if I'm really interested in the subject.

 

[The Shade]

99% of everything on the internet is user-generated content.
At least with Wikipedia, if someone screws up, someone else will probably correct it.

That's always been my response to claims that Wiki is not reliable. Guaranteed, if something in Wiki is wrong, there will be ten people who will rise up and correct it almost immediately.

And, of course, there are the pages with lock disclaimers because people have vandalized them. Those become the most closely scrutinized articles of all.

 

[nekolux]

I think wikipedia is a reasonably good source of information provided the info you're citing is cited properly on wikipedia. A lot of people don't give wiki due credit. There are roughly 2 errors per article. Now if you look at a really long and complex article, 2 errors isn't really all that much.

Albeit my friend did write an article about a russian-ukrainian war. He then made a few website with all the info and cited those websites. The article was on for 2 weeks before they realized it was a fake

 

[elgenx]

unless my own brain knows wiki usually does

 

[Sonicron]

For quick information which has no relevance to my future, yes... but if we use wikipedia for anything research-related our profs fail us, so in those cases I'm left with no choice but to drag my arse into the library.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

I use it very regularly, though I'm always aware that the information provided might not be true, if there's anything I doubt then I'll always check to see if a source is cited and then I'll check out that source.

 

[twistedshadows]

I won't use it for research papers, but it works just fine if I need to look something non-school related up.

 

[ArchBlade]

All the time, actually. Wikipedia, from what I've seen is usually (USUALLY) a pretty accurate source. Very rarely do I find information from Wikipedia being discredited.

I don't often use it for research, I do, but it's not my first source. I mostly use it for little bits of information I'm interested in at that moment, which in turn becomes something like this.

 

[Emilin_Rose]

Wikipedia is usually the first and main reference for me. The user generated content does mean there will be problems with it, but most of it is fairly accurate. If something doesn't seem right or has a plot hole you may want to check another source.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

as a general rule of thumb wikipedia is fairly reliable. Sure you can change it to say the Eiffel tower is made of poop and George Washington's real name is buttshit but it will either be moderated or corrected within the first 5 minutes.

 

[Harlemura]

I use it for anything I haven't heard anything about, ever. As long as it's not something to do with science, my attention span's way too short for that.

 

['-_-]

hell ya!!! best place for learning all the crap that you'll never need in ur life

 

[Wayne Insane]

Seriously, I would die without Wikipedia.

 

[geon106]

I use it for research but i usually find another source to back it up with as Wikipedia isn't always reliable.

At university i used Wikipedia for the answers and so had most of the rest of the group and the tutor was just like "yeah i know you've all copied Wikipedia, cuz i changed it to put a typo on HSDPA and its on all your papers" so that kinda taught me a lesson not to rely on it(and not to pull the wool over your tutors eyes at university lol)

 

[PureChaos]

if someone asked me something i don't know i usually go to wikipedia, it's not steered me wrong yet.