Poll: How accurate do you think Wikipedia really is?

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Any page which is on a specialised subject no one knows about will be fine. in depth history of the discovery of a type of bacteria will probably be textbook accurate.

It's anything with a modicum of popularity you have to watch out for.

 

[Bourne]

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?

LOL age!!!!

The difference between the library and wikipedia is the difference between learning something and reading something. Note I am not saying "internet", I am saying wikipedia. It serves it purposes, but there is a reason universities do not allow wikipedia as a credible source.

 

[Dags90]

but there is a reason universities do not allow wikipedia as a credible source.

That reason is largely because wikipedia does not perform rigorous oversight into the credulity of its sources. Which isn't to say that the sources aren't credible, but they don't make the guarantee that they are.

That said, many article do have credible sources, and many instances of weasel words are marked as such when not sourced.

 

[Rylot]

I find it's good for a quick over view of an issue, and handily it has links to other sources, so all in all it's a pretty good database.

 

[Velvo]

LOL age!!!!

The difference between the library and wikipedia is the difference between learning something and reading something. Note I am not saying "internet", I am saying wikipedia. It serves it purposes, but there is a reason universities do not allow wikipedia as a credible source.

My university did, so long as you have some other things to back it up. Besides, you just read in libraries as well as on the internet. You just have to take a lot longer to look things up in a library. You want to figure something out to learn it? Go take a class with experiments and the like. You want to read to figure something out? The internet is faster.

 

[Naheal]

Accurate enough that teachers are bullshitting us.

Not just them!!

 

[baboon 101]

I wouldn't cite it as a source, but 99.999999% of the time, it will at least give you an idea about topics on which you don't even know where to begin research.

 

[Bourne]

You want to figure something out to learn it? Go take a class with experiments and the like. You want to read to figure something out? The internet is faster.

That's a frightening approach to education.

 

[Stoplesteimer]

Wikipedia is useful a a jumping off point and for general knowledge but I never trust it past that.

 

[SPCF]

Accurate enough to have the basically same info as a bunch of other sources.
The thing about Wikipedia is that it gets topics and such to the people much faster than if a book or something was published for maybe a few mistakes :/

 

[grimsprice]

LOL age!!!!

The difference between the library and wikipedia is the difference between learning something and reading something. Note I am not saying "internet", I am saying wikipedia. It serves it purposes, but there is a reason universities do not allow wikipedia as a credible source.

I wasn't talking about Wiki. I was addressing this...

"all these search engines are destroying the human intellect and making the country seriously ADD when it comes to learning."

To which my reply still stands. What is the difference between reading something on the internet in 5 minutes, and reading something in the library that takes an hour.

Learning is learning. If you do it on the moon with Druidic rune tablets, its still learning.

 

[RooftopAssassin]

I think it's 95% accurate between to hours of 9am and 11pm, after or before that random people just start messing things up for everyone.

 

[Vigormortis]

It's only as accurate as the collective knowledge of those editing it. Ergo, NOT VERY ACCURATE. Since just about anyone, no matter how misinformed, can edit the pages. And someone JUST as misinformed can decide that the edit is wrong and can change it back to the original, incorrect state.

I look at it this way. If pretty much every college in existence (essentially, the majority of academia) will not allow Wikipedia to be cited as a resource in any research paper, then I'd wager it's safe to say it's not considered "accurate" by those in the know.

 

[Bourne]

To which my reply still stands. What is the difference between reading something on the internet in 5 minutes, and reading something in the library that takes an hour.

Learning is learning. If you do it on the moon with Druidic rune tablets, its still learning.

From personal experience, knowledge gained from a book is more difficult to obtain, and thus more value is attached to that knowledge; knowledge gained from a quick google search will likely not last quite so long in the memory banks.

But seriously, now that the internet is around, fuck books, am I right?

 

[grimsprice]

To which my reply still stands. What is the difference between reading something on the internet in 5 minutes, and reading something in the library that takes an hour.

Learning is learning. If you do it on the moon with Druidic rune tablets, its still learning.

From personal experience, knowledge gained from a book is more difficult to obtain, and thus more value is attached to that knowledge; knowledge gained from a quick google search will likely not last quite so long in the memory banks.

But seriously, now that the internet is around, fuck books, am I right?

Interesting. That would certainly explain your point of view. And why i hold the opposite. See, i have a very sticky memory, i tend to remember enormous amounts of detail from a single pass. It makes watching movies a second time pointless though...

Anyways, i love books. I have a shelf of my favorite fiction. Douglas Adams, Tolkien, etc. I just wouldn't use books to learn about sciency stuff. I go to peer reviewed journals for that.

To each his own.

 

[Fragged_Templar]

The accuracy and reliablity of the information found on wikipedia varies, but for the most part it is accurate. when using wikipedia, for anything other than personal curiosity surfing, your rule of thumb should be to check for citations, and then to check those citations.

If you are a university student, then never ever EVAR use wiki as a source, use the cited articles or the sources found in those cited articles. here is why, not only will this provide more information, but it will also be more reliable as well as not making your professor annoyed/angry. Enjoy

 

[voetballeeuw]

Wikipedia does not lie. Every piece of information is correct. No but really I think the majority of it is alright just don't use it as the foundation of your argument.

 

[Miumaru]

Accurate enough that teachers are bullshitting us.

What?

OT: I think it isn't accurate. The ability to Modify something to better suit your needs be it small or great can still create a huge False statement in the over all understanding of it. Also i can't remember it but if you type in a specific Site or something it comes up saying it doesn't exist.

Teachers always say its not very accurate. It is. If you are typing websites into the wiki search bar, well, it wont work unless its explicityl called .com or whatever. The Escapist is on wikipedia, but its not under "escapistmagazine.com", its under The Escapist (Magazine).