Poll: How accurate do you think Wikipedia really is?

[Blindswordmaster]

Above question repeated:

 

[Miumaru]

Accurate enough that teachers are bullshitting us.

 

[Fusoiya]

I'm not to sure but I think pretty accurate :<

 

[Sleekgiant]

Its usually pretty accurate for me, never found any major flaws in it.

 

[Free Thinker]

I gave up on Wikipedia after I tried so hard to put in that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were currently in a relationship.
CURSE YOU INFORMATION CZARS!

 

[Judgement101]

Accurate enought to get me through High-School English, History, and German

 

[Marter]

I heard 96% accurate. An encyclopaedia is about 98% accurate.

Wikipedia is good enough for me. ^_^

 

[Cody211282]

I would say overall probably around 80%

 

[Sonofadiddly]

Depends on the article. I know this is an unreliable measure, but I tend to rate them based on how many sources they list.

 

[Bourne]

Its accurate, but can sometimes be written in an amateurish fashion. I would stick to doing research the old fashioned way, all these search engines are destroying the human intellect and making the country seriously ADD when it comes to learning.

 

[Blair Bennett]

It depends, for the most part, I'd say it's at least fairly accurate. However, every once in a while, someone will go screw with it. For instance, I remember a time I found the wikipedia page for the Regenerators from Resident Evil 4, and the article in question stated that the reason they were hostile towards one Leon Scott Kennedy was because they did not ingest their daily quota of bologna sandwiches. If I'm not mistaken, there was also mention of their regenerative abilities originating from pagan rituals they had performed in order to become legendary artists. Not particularly accurate, but certainly worth the read.

 

[Nu-Hir]

It's as accurate as people want it to be.

 

[grimsprice]

Its accurate, but can sometimes be written in an amateurish fashion. I would stick to doing research the old fashioned way, all these search engines are destroying the human intellect and making the country seriously ADD when it comes to learning.

Ha haha hahahaha.

I knew you were over 35 before i even looked at your profile.

A little know fact that you might be interested in... we (the scientifically literate western world) don't know how the brain functions under various environments. We also don't know how it reacts to long term exposure to different stimuli.

So your baseless assertion might be completely wrong. In fact, the incredible multitasking one notices in youth recently might be a direct byproduct of access to vast sources of stimuli. It might be the case that the internet develops ones intellect more than reading a book.

I can get on my laptop and learn 10 times as much as someone watching T.V. And you know what? Large portions of your parents generation believed that the television was poisoning peoples minds. Making information to easy to come by. Making them lazy.

So i ask you. What is the difference between learning something over 10 minutes, and learning something over 3 hours in the library? What difference does it make besides time wasted?

 

[crudus]

I find it to be fairly accurate. I always use it as a jumping off point for major research projects/papers. It is only bad in the wrong hands. If 9/10 sources say something and wikipedia says something completely different, guess which one is wrong. I always check sources with one another anyway. Wikipedia is just another source to me.

 

[Yureina]

Somewhat. I wouldn't use it for a research project, but I will look at it for some quick information.

 

[Ekit]

I think it's accurate for the most part.

What I love about wikipedia is that there is an article on pretty much everything. You can't find Sega Genesis in a regular encyclopedia.

 

[LamborghiniJackson]

Accurate enough to help me pass the 9th grade.

Good times...

 

[Velvo]

It's kept in check pretty well by people who want to be smarter than other people and so comb Wikipedia for inaccuracies or incompletes. This is why some comic books have larger entries than some properties of science (it is because people accumulate USELESS KNOWLEDGE).

That said, the goal of "the sum of human knowledge for free on the internet" is a noble one. I just know that most of that is terrible information.