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

[DudeistBelieve]

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.

Will get you laughed at by pretentious professors that are technophobic. Any moron can know that "Martin Luther King" did not "Suck monkey dick" as a hobby. The greifing edits are obvious. They just don't wanna accept change.

EDIT: Seriously, Wikipedia is the only piece of modern technology that the idea of losing it litterally puts me in fear. A wealth of relative knowledge at the tips of my fingers? Invaluable.

 

[Kagim]

Never quote wikipedia as your source, instead follow the reference links at the bottom of the page. Even if your quoting the exact same sentence from the reference source.

In an argument people will dismiss anything preceded by "according to wikipedia". It's essentially a cop out to dismiss your opponents statement.

Furthermore its generally bad to quote it for acedemic papers. Why? Heres my English 103 teachers reason.

"When you use wikipedia as your source your essentially quoting someone else's research paper. For me, or anyone else to allow citing wikipedia as your source of information would be the same as allowing you to quote the student beside you as a source. Follow the references at the bottom, but never cite wikipedia. The word backed by a doctor is better then the word an anonymous person quoting what they interpreted as the word of the doctor."

 

[ScarlettRage]

Depends on the topic really, sometimes its good, sometimes... not so good.

 

[orangeapples]

When I've looked over Wikipedia it really does seem accurate, but when it is wrong it is hilariously wrong. Not in the sense that the information was just completely inaccurate, it would be stupid.

Few years ago I was looking for information on McDonald's, went to Wikipedia McDonald's page and all it said was "McDonald's sucks, Burger King Rulez". Me being a half-way decent human being looked at that and thought, "hmmm... That information is wrong. Looks like I'll have to look somewhere else." I'm certain there are some particularly dim people out there who would have looked at that page and thought to themselves, "Oh, well that's all I need to know about McDonald's. Burger King Rulez."

don't think of those quotes as an actual person's thought process, but just as a representation of how people think.

And for the record, I do not personally believe that Burger King 'rules' especially since Burger King microwaves over half of their menu. This doesn't mean I don't eat Burger King, just I'd rather not.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Never quote wikipedia as your source, instead follow the reference links at the bottom of the page. Even if your quoting the exact same sentence from the reference source.

In an argument people will dismiss anything preceded by "according to wikipedia". It's essentially a cop out to dismiss your opponents statement.

Furthermore its generally bad to quote it for acedemic papers. Why? Heres my English 103 teachers reason.

"When you use wikipedia as your source your essentially quoting someone else's research paper. For me, or anyone else to allow citing wikipedia as your source of information would be the same as allowing you to quote the student beside you as a source. Follow the references at the bottom, but never cite wikipedia. The word backed by a doctor is better then the word an anonymous person quoting what they interpreted as the word of the doctor."

This guy's English professor gave the real reason; Wikipedia is a tertiary source, while academic research is generally through primary and secondary sources. By the time you get to 3000 level classes in college, not only is Wikipedia impermissible, but so are all encyclopedias. If it's not peer reviewed and published either as a book or in an academic journal, it's not "reliable" to the standards of higher education. This has somehow trickled down to the highschool level with the idea that wikipedia is unreliable, period, but that's not what it's supposed to mean.

 

[jawakiller]

Always check their sources and don't list it as a reference on a paper... Just saying.

 

[Commissar Sae]

It's fairly reliable most of the time. But as others have said, it should not be used for serious research. It can be a decent place to find sources though, or just broad information on a topic of research.

 

[DracoSuave]

There's a reason that college professors will not accept it as a cited source. The places it can lead to, sure, but not Wiki itself.

Not reliable, no.

Because it's an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias are not reliable sources because they are not, in fact, sources. They are distillations of sources.

If you're doing a paper on some specific article, you cite the article. You don't cite the magazine you learned about such article from, or the encylcopedia that sums it up, or the cliff notes on that article.

This should be common sense.

 

[DarkRyter]

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you're getting the best possible information."

I trust wikipedia.

I trust my fellow man to be accurate and truthful.

May be idealistic, may be foolish, but it's certainly convenient.

 

[Araksardet]

I find the more visibility a topic has, generally, the more reliable the article is, because it's usually being fought over and edited by more people. The vast majority of topics seem pretty reliable, but sometimes, when you hit on things that are a little more obscure, you find articles that read like giant manifestos on how only homeopathy can save your soul, or high-school essays on how to fix the world's problems in three simple steps.

I find the discussion pages, when there is a discussion, can be very valuable, because they help you get a sense of the forces that acted on the article to make it what it is today.

 

[Canid117]

People think wikipedia is unreliable because their high school lit teacher says not to use it as a source. The problem is they give a bullshit reason for why not to use it (the anyone can edit excuse) when the actual reason they should give is that you are not supposed to use any encyclopedia as a source in reports and other such things. On forums its perfectly fine.

 

[Peteron]

For the most part, I would say it is a reliable site. However, because anybody can edit it, false information is present on certain pages. Just check the sources if you are unsure.

 

[zehydra]

It's pretty reliable. The only reason you can't use it as a source for papers and such is that it is not 99% reliable, that is, it is not peer reviewed by the important academics who call the shots on what gets put into reference books and things.

 

[cgentero]

I remember reading that Wikipedia has 2 errors for each 1 Encyclopedia Britannica has, doesn't seem so unreliable.

 

[docSpitfire]

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.

I was on a forum where someone cited this study... and the next two posts were as follows

"(quoted first post)Where did you hear that?"

"(quoted both) Wikipedia"

However when say teachers tell you not to use it as a source it's not inaccuracy but rather the lack of authority.

For example if I told you "there are approximately 2500 Red Pandas alive today"
I'm 90% sure that's an accurate statistic, however if you wanted to use that statistic in a paper you would have to verify it by either reading the results of a red panda population study and providing evidence as to the likely hood of it being a properly conducted scientific study. (publishing of a study in a scientific magazine counts for this because it means that it's been reviewed by scientists in it's field) or by citing an authoritative source who's analyzed data on the subject.

this is a shield for you, because if you use a statistic that happens to be wrong, you don't look like an idiot.

(for example lets say 2 people write a newspaper article in which they used my statistic on red pandas, and a year later it's revealed that the study was performed incorrectly and the statistics are wrong)

Paper 1: takes my word for it, loses credibility.
Paper 2: cites the improper study, scientist loses credibility in their place.

 

[Chibz]

Wikipedia is only reliable for a vague description of the topic, and sources for further research. Beyond that, no.

 

[Hauntghost20]

Our school has blocked Wikis in genreal yup i refuse to go to the "libary" they speck of.