Poll: Is Wikipedia unreliable? (not in my opinion)

[Jegsimmons]

Now i have heard MANY a claims of Wikipedia being an unreliable source for info since anyone who knows how can alter the page.
I on the other hand have been informed of a way to see if it's all bullshit or not.

The cited sources section.

When i read a statement that seems false i just look down and see what the source is, then i will actually check the source to see if it's biased, credible, ect.

This also comes in handy on school projects and papers, don't read the articles just go to the sources and SHAZAAM!!! you just made your research a little bit easier. (results may vary)


So what do you think? Reliable or not?

(Also off topic, but has anyone else thought that maby encyclopedia dramatica is actually ,in a messed up way, less biased and in some cases more reliable in it's sources and facts? Just a thought.)

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I think its reliable. I use it for most everything when it comes to information, for the reason you stated: Each article can have dozens of sources for the smallest sentence.

 

[SillyBear]

No, not at all. It is a huge myth.

Most pages on Wikipedia are far more reliable and comprehensive than anything else.

 

[willsham45]

Wiki is a good place to start research but that is about it. Use its links look at the sources people clame to have used and maybe use some of the tables and pics. Take what is says with a giant pinch of salt and always double check its info. Good place to point you in the write direction...sometimes.

 

[Zaik]

It's mostly useless.

Not because anyone can edit it, but because the group of nutjobs that spend 40 hours a week "working" on it for nothing are all ultra pretentious whackos that love to keep stuff unreadable or useless to anyone who doesn't already have a degree in the field the definition comes from because it makes them feel intellectually superior or something.

I remember one time someone around here was asking what people thought about Noam Chomsky, and I tried to figure out wtf he was actually talking about and got this page which used the word "chomskian" about 1,200 times(not an exaggeration), but never actually explained what it meant.

You can check their sources, and maybe find something useful there, but those are often useless too.

 

[sheic99]

There was a study, I wish I still knew where it was that found on average that Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica had about the same number of errors. Wikipedia due to the user edits and EB because the amount of data that is out of date due to lack of edits.

So, yes, Wikipedia is a great source of information.

 

[maturin]

You can generally tell when to be cautious. An experienced reader can judge an article at a glance by its language, formatting and completeness. Skimpy information carries far more bias than slanted information. If you write something biased, it will be challenged. If you write half an article into a stub, leaving out all inconvenient facts that conflict with your viewpoint, then it is simply half an article and will stay there until someone completes it.

Also, watch out for Frankenstein paragraphs, which are multi-author debates set to prose, with dueling sentences right next to each other.

 

[Jedoro]

I'd say it's pretty reliable when the sources are good. Granted, colleges don't like when it's used, but I'll just use their sources and cite those.

 

[Worgen]

its pretty reliable for most things but if you get into certain subjects then your more likely to find people trying to mess with it

 

[crazyfoxdemon]

I think the fact that every college professor that I've ever had has refused to accept it as a source pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[Phlakes]

There are a few un-cited bits of information when you get into pop culture, but basically anything you need to research is all done by people who know what the fuck they're talking about. No troll cares enough about the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy to edit anything into it.

 

[TheSaw]

Yep, wikipedia is 100% reliable.

But seriously, I do find it reliable with most things, and I use it frequently for anything.

 

[Darth IB]

Is Wikipedia accurate? Most of the time, yes.
Should you take for granted that it is? Certainly not.
Because of its nature it is, as a source, unreliable. While that doesn't mean you should mistrust wikipedia, it does mean you should perhaps not cite it in academic works.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Good for general knowledge if you're strapped for time but for research? Never.

Yep, wikipedia is 100% reliable.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

This is why I have a bunker under my house.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I find it reliable, though most of my browsing anymore is for trivial things.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

It's always a good idea to check the sources. On most things, check the discussion page because... well... Martin Luther, for example, is written much like any other page, but on the discussion page it claims that it's lost it's legitimacy, and Martin Luther is kinda important.

But if it's Star Wars or comic book related, it's reliability is almost unquestionable.

 

[Berenzen]

Using wikipedia as a source in and of itself, and citing it as such, will get your paper laughed at, plain and simple. Yes, it has a citation section, but the page itself could be edited, and as such, is less trustworthy than a hard copy of an uneditable article, not to mention it is third-hand information. If you're going to get information from wikipedia, go to the citation section and get your information from the credible sources, rather from the wiki page.

 

[YoUnG205]

most parts of wikipedia are pretty reliable, and even the parts thats are worng th.ey wont be for very long due to the amount of people that are on wikipedia and are editing it. I will say that i do use wikipediaq quite often to look up movies and actors and pretty much anything else to be honest, and no one has every called me wrong when i quote wikipedia

 

[Kolby Jack]

Well, I know school teachers hate it but then school teachers are INCREDIBLY by the book and inflexible when it comes to sources so they don't really count. I'm in the US Navy, and one of the first things they told me in training was that wikipedia is a godsend when gathering public information. They absolutely do not care if you use wikipedia as a source unless it is your ONLY source.

Aside from that, I surf wikipedia regularly and rarely run into obvious vandalism. Most articles on it that I've seen are always presented in a very objective fashion.

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

Wikipedia works, you just need to have other sources to back it up, most teachers won't give you shit then.