Poll: Do you use Wikipedia?

[Deadpewl]

I use it when I need a quick answer to something, but even then ill usually check a few other sources to verify info.

 

[skeliton112]

Hell yeah because of wiki i know the first rapid fire weapon is the gatling gun, there are three types of rapid fire (Heavy, Sub and Asualt) and 10 grenades are Stinger, frag, percussion, blank, incendiary, smoke, tear gas, Flash Bang, anti tank, impact stun and i know how incendiary bullets work (GO ME). So....yes i do use it.

 

[Sigel]

yes, I love wikipedia. I have spent so much time looking at useless information.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

Ever since Wikipedia told me Celine Dion was from Stoke-On-Trent, I have not trusted it.

But I've used it for funsies

 

[Vuljatar]

I use Wikipedia all the time, usually the only times I don't use it are when researching a controversial subject where people would have reason to lie about it.

 

[Federalist92]

I use wikipedia alot for news refrences. If i hear mention of something in the news and i dont know what it is i'll wiki it. Thats hw i found out what vietnam and Nato were. (back when i was 12)

 

[Nargleblarg]

I use wikipedia for any and all the knowledge I need at any moment....and some I don't need.

 

[Xelanath]

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

Because academics use the internet too?

 

[ragamuffingirl]

Now from what I have been told, Wikipedia is not a reliable sourse for information because of its user generated content. So my question is, when you do research, do you actually research or do you just Wiki it?

That's just stupid.

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

So yes, I do. It's pretty easy to tell when something has been vandalized anyway.

i agree with you, and that's pretty much why i like Wikipedia. that's also why i don't consider the internet in general a valid source of information.

Wikepedia is just a jumping off point for research. You get links at the bottom and so it can be a useful source to further your peer reviewed research.

 

[mikecoulter]

It's a very good source to get basic understanding on a variety of subjects. But then real research may be needed to confirm finer facts.

 

[R3dF41c0n]

I use Wikipedia as a starting point but never as a main resource.

 

[Xelanath]

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.

I don't mean to sound as though I'm trying to patronise you, but are you or have you been in higher education? Unless you went through the system before Wikipedia was started you'd know that, as the above poster stated, no higher education institution will accept a Wikipedia reference.

Without the controls that come with other sources (peer-review, a publisher's reputation, an author's reputation etc.) Wikipedia simply cannot be 100% trusted. This isn't to say that it's not useful, or that we can't use the sources that people attach to it. Though, as has been pointed out in this thread, that's not an unproblematic process in itself.

The bottom line is that it cannot be trusted as easily as other academic sources; so when push comes to shove, it doesn't make the cut.

 

[Knoodlepot]

wiki is a lie!

 

[Jark212]

every once in a while.

Wiki is not a valid source!!!

 

[Fraught]

Yes. If the information is already mostly correct and in one place, why shouldn't you use it?

This. People say that it lies because users can edit it, but that's stupid. The information is almost always correct, and the people who edit it research the topic before they edit.
If someone is trolling an article, you can realize they're trolling almost immediately.

 

[Naeo]

If I'm looking something up on my own time, I'll check Wikipedia and maybe follow some of the reference links at the bottom. If Wikipedia somehow doesn't help me I use Google. If I'm doing research, I never use Wikipedia because none of my teachers would do anything short of crucify me if I did.

 

[Andalusa]

I do use Wikipedia, it can be useful but I do use other places as well.
I mean how bad can it be when a lot of the time, if you Google something, Wikipedia comes up in the first three links?

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I use it very often when I need info on something. It's very helpful.

 

[Jedoro]

I'll use it for fun and research. While I won't quote Wikipedia, I'll check out their sources and quote/cite those.