Poll: Is Wikipedia unreliable? (not in my opinion)
- Thread starter Jegsimmons
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I use Wikipedia to get general info, and if I need research, as a source to find sources. Since most of the time, info has sources, I generally trust that. If the info doesn't have a cited source, take it with a grain of salt. That's my thought process anyway.
Depends if your looking for just random trivial knowledge or hard research. I know that my College tutors refused to accept it as a source for most work. I think it is mostly reliable, specially now that it requires sources far more than it used to. However its only really reliable if your looking for... The quick version of what your researching if you understand what I'm talking about here.
If your looking for research and info for something more professional like college work then you might want to find sites or books more specific to that. However for random trivial fact finding... It'll do just fine.
I do find that Wikipedia could use a "Basically section" at the top because, as one user said, it can be oddly complex at times when your just trying to find the basic answer for what it is. Often requiring you to read on about things you either don't know about or care about. Which I don't mind them having for when someone wants to do a more in-depth look however when your just trying to find out something quick and the basics of it... Can be a pain in the arse.
If your looking for research and info for something more professional like college work then you might want to find sites or books more specific to that. However for random trivial fact finding... It'll do just fine.
I do find that Wikipedia could use a "Basically section" at the top because, as one user said, it can be oddly complex at times when your just trying to find the basic answer for what it is. Often requiring you to read on about things you either don't know about or care about. Which I don't mind them having for when someone wants to do a more in-depth look however when your just trying to find out something quick and the basics of it... Can be a pain in the arse.
Wiki is great because it's the quickest way to look up any topic, but it shouldn't always be taken seriously.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16/
Many of my college professors talked about Wiki when we had a paper assigned. Some didn't want us using it, NONE of them said we were allowed to use it as a source, however, most of them said it's a great database but only to give us a starting point to then give us better direction into finding specific information in REAL sources.
Keep in mind the internet is a dangerous place filled with great freedom and great stupidity. Everything should be approached with caution and eyewash solution.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16/
Many of my college professors talked about Wiki when we had a paper assigned. Some didn't want us using it, NONE of them said we were allowed to use it as a source, however, most of them said it's a great database but only to give us a starting point to then give us better direction into finding specific information in REAL sources.
Keep in mind the internet is a dangerous place filled with great freedom and great stupidity. Everything should be approached with caution and eyewash solution.
Depends for me. If it's something like a mathematical and scientific topic (Riemann Sums, hyperbolic trigonometry, color force, etc) it's absolutely reliable, though not always informative to a layman. On topics like history, yeah, it's quite reliable in general. On recent politics, I don't trust it because it is too often a "young article" that is prone to less revision for style and neutrality. On the whole, though, it's a pretty reliable source. BUT if you're doing intensive research into something it's often not very useful in the first place, unless that something is "the civil war" or some very large topic. More narrow focuses are often best served by looking at other sources (sometimes the sources cited at the bottom are perfectly adequate). Wikipedia covers a lot of topics very broadly. With the exception of high-profile and usually recent topics in the realms of history and politics and so on, even complex and deep topics get less words than is necessary to completely and fully understand them. After all, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, not a specialist reference. Not to say it merely skims all topics, since it does have a lot of good stuff, but if you're doing serious research with a narrow focus I find it often simply does not have a sufficient volume of information.
It's one shining virtue, though, is that reading an article there can give you a very good idea of things to look for in subsequent research.
It's one shining virtue, though, is that reading an article there can give you a very good idea of things to look for in subsequent research.
Wikipedia is good for quick reference, general knowledge seeking or as a jumping off point for research papers. For anything more than that you need something from a provable source, someone with credentials that can be examined and proven. Since there is no requirement for provable expertise in a subject before someone is allowed to edit, anything they write or edit is of questionable reliability. And just because they have cited their source does not mean they fully understand the subject.
people always complain about wikipedia being unreliable, but i think its just that it's unreliable 'in theory' because of how it works, but in practice it almost always (in my experience) seems to be very reliable. Tho of course, you still might wanna check the sources at times.
It's fine for normal stuff, bets with friends and simple curiosity. For anything that's actually important, I would make sure that you get some corroboration, either from the cited sources or from other sources entirely. The information is usually accurate, but very rarely you will find a page or two that has false information.Jegsimmons said:
It depends what you mean my reliable. It certainly is a good place to learn about new things and the like and when something is messed with you can usually tell.
However, despite being a fairly reliable source for information it is not to be used as a reference for research. This is because it is always changing or holds the potential to be changed. That negates the whole point of a reference by definition.
To be a bit more explicit what you read on a wiki page for your research may not be what is on that wiki page when someone goes to look it up. Thus it makes a poor reference itself.
Summary: Its a good source for information but is inherently a bad reference.
However, despite being a fairly reliable source for information it is not to be used as a reference for research. This is because it is always changing or holds the potential to be changed. That negates the whole point of a reference by definition.
To be a bit more explicit what you read on a wiki page for your research may not be what is on that wiki page when someone goes to look it up. Thus it makes a poor reference itself.
Summary: Its a good source for information but is inherently a bad reference.
If you're looking up something a bit obscure, it's best to check the sources and make sure. For things that are fairly known but you want to know more about, it's generally pretty good.
I have a couple of things about this, firstly, yes it can be edited by anyone, but technically, so can any page on the Internet really. Also, you've got to be SERIOUSLY bored to want to edit random stuff on wikipedia.
Also doesn't wikipedia have like a team that solely work on making sure everything on wikipedia is legit? I mean sure they could miss some stuff but the chances of finding generally unreliable information I reckon is kinda slim.
Also doesn't wikipedia have like a team that solely work on making sure everything on wikipedia is legit? I mean sure they could miss some stuff but the chances of finding generally unreliable information I reckon is kinda slim.
It's a great source on some topics (Scientific, mostly. Historical too probably.) however you really can't cite it as a source because of its ever-changing nature. The information you read and processed might be different than the information that your professor reads and processes later on that day/week/month. Whether it's because something needed to be clarified or there was an inaccuracy the information can change which would make proper citation tricky.
Also, as someone else said, that's third hand information. For scholarly work you'd be better off looking at scholarly articles. (Go figure)
So recap: Great for information, not that great as a source that someone might be checking up on due to its nature.
Also, as someone else said, that's third hand information. For scholarly work you'd be better off looking at scholarly articles. (Go figure)
So recap: Great for information, not that great as a source that someone might be checking up on due to its nature.
The only time I find it reliable is when I'm looking up a superhero or something geeky like that.