Poll: Has Wikipedia Lied To You?
- Thread starter beeper21
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've rarely found it to contain false information, but usually the stuff I look up on there is stuff that fans contribute (i.e. television shows, music, movies, etc) so I'm sure the rampant fan bases would ensure the correct information. Now I also look up Philosophers and what not on there also, so I may have been lied to, but not to my knowledge as of yet.
It doesn't lie to you, but never put it as a reference for a project for university/college....or anything.
I believe in total its only happend twice to me, once it was a rather obscure topic. The other a delibrate attempt by somone to mess with the information.
I use wiki all the time for base information for university papers, and as a starting point for gathering sources.
I use wiki all the time for base information for university papers, and as a starting point for gathering sources.
Well, it told me I was dirty evil person for being an atheist. It also told me that I was wrong for thinking that abortion was a choice.
This is all assuming that you know enough about whatever you look up to recongise whether you've been lied to or not. Unless it's blatantly ovbious, then it's unlikly you will seeing as your visting wiki to find something out.
Insofar as i know, it's been true for me.
Insofar as i know, it's been true for me.
Well, that's subjective anyway. Most people would argue that 28 days/weeks later is a zombie movie, despite them still being alive, because they fit every other classification of a zombie. But then again, the original zombies(Carribean) were humans who were drugged and easily controlled and didn't eat human flesh at all.Larenxis post=18.68987.646117 said:
So it really depends on what version of a zombie you're using.
I think there's an irresponsible way (the lying way) and a responsible way to use Wikipedia, wherein you'll achieve minimum lie factor. The wrong way is to go to a page once, and then assume everything that there is factually accurate. Always check the sources cited down at the bottom. A ton are just other people's websites. So, those, more or less, can only be considered true with a modifier like "it has been put forward over the internet that" and the like, or by checking any sources cited by that site. A good thing to do, if you find something that you think is vandalism, is to refresh the page. A lot of those disappear immediately. And if "Bill Clinton is a baby eater" is still there, you may want to wait an hour or more.
Wikipedia told a friend of mine that some American Civil War battle's casualties on the Confederate side consisted of "George W. Bush and 16 others." It had a more reasonable figure when he checked again the next day, but we thought it was quite funny.
Also, I know a girl who added her English teacher to a list of endangered whales. It wasn't up long.
Wikipedia, for all its vulnerability to idiots, is at least competent at rectifying obvious mistakes. I do trust it as a source, but I can never attribute anything to it in my writing.
Also, I know a girl who added her English teacher to a list of endangered whales. It wasn't up long.
Wikipedia, for all its vulnerability to idiots, is at least competent at rectifying obvious mistakes. I do trust it as a source, but I can never attribute anything to it in my writing.