Poll: Wikipedia
- Thread starter Hateren47
- Start date
Recommended Videos
98. I have friends who have edited an article before for fun, and it was barely two minutes before the page was back to normal. Not to mention it will usually tell you at the top of the page if there are non-cited facts, has been subject to vandalism, etc.
I think we have a winner.Alex Cowan said:
On topic: I selected 98 percent, mostly because of how insanely detailed some of those articles can be, with dozens of varied sources. I've found plenty of little things that are blatantly false, but overall it somehow manages a consistent level of integrity (not necessarily accuracy though; I'm not qualified to make such a claim). I think the very nature of it being able to be edited by anyone assists that, because as much as my misanthropy loathes i the majority of people are not dicks. Contrast with Conservapedia, which severely limits its membership and is the biggest troll website in existence.
Yeah, thats a big drop off point to go from 98% to less than 50?
I would say as Aylaine did, about 80-85%.
Also have to consider that a large part of wikipedia factual errors are not so much errors as they are opinionated statements. Much like the notorious edit on Halo 3 by Sony saying "Halo 3 will not look that much different than Halo 2, before it was released.
And of course the ever present "Insert immature juvenile edit just because I can" edits that their moderators do an outstanding job of keeping under control considering the sheer mass of wikipedia.
Consider that content wise, Wikipedia is like 6 times the size of a more noted and venerated reference the encyclopedia Britannica. Now granted Im sure 2 of those sixes goes to inane content such as, the entire list of transformers, comic book chars, celebrities, atheletes, ect.
Anyway...I think the biggest reason for hate toward wikipedia is just because educators know how easily it can nullify a large part of the difficulty they put into their syllabi (what is the proper plural of syllabus?) and thus forces the challenge back onto them... well that, and some people are lazy and dont use Furburts technique for using wikipedia and just cite wikipedia outright.
I would say as Aylaine did, about 80-85%.
Also have to consider that a large part of wikipedia factual errors are not so much errors as they are opinionated statements. Much like the notorious edit on Halo 3 by Sony saying "Halo 3 will not look that much different than Halo 2, before it was released.
And of course the ever present "Insert immature juvenile edit just because I can" edits that their moderators do an outstanding job of keeping under control considering the sheer mass of wikipedia.
Consider that content wise, Wikipedia is like 6 times the size of a more noted and venerated reference the encyclopedia Britannica. Now granted Im sure 2 of those sixes goes to inane content such as, the entire list of transformers, comic book chars, celebrities, atheletes, ect.
Anyway...I think the biggest reason for hate toward wikipedia is just because educators know how easily it can nullify a large part of the difficulty they put into their syllabi (what is the proper plural of syllabus?) and thus forces the challenge back onto them... well that, and some people are lazy and dont use Furburts technique for using wikipedia and just cite wikipedia outright.
I pick other. As we say in my class (teachers too, and I'm studying media, so sources are really important) "Wikipedia can't be used as a main source, but it can be used as completion of information found on other places. Also, you should always check the sources listed on the wiki page in question"
I think most is true there, but it's not always solid fact. It's usable, but it has to be confirmed.
I think most is true there, but it's not always solid fact. It's usable, but it has to be confirmed.
It's accurate enough. The only reason that teachers say not to use it is that then it would be too easy to write a report.
its is usually accurate, however sometimes a **** will go in and change something to something wrong, double checking the facts is good, but all in all, wiki will serve a good starting point for any reasearch project, as long and you have data redundancy, you will be ok
Yes, it can be edited by anyone, but it doesn't mean that if you post some bullshit without any proof, it will just stay there.
Also, when you post some information, you have to quote the source you got it from. You cant just say you heard it on tv, or your dad told you so. Go to any Wiki article, scroll to the bottom and you will find all the source material, which most of the times is a literature.
Also, when you post some information, you have to quote the source you got it from. You cant just say you heard it on tv, or your dad told you so. Go to any Wiki article, scroll to the bottom and you will find all the source material, which most of the times is a literature.
By it's nature you have to review the information given carefully. I find that if there are plenty of citations, reference data and cross-referencing it is every bit as trustworthy as any other source. Any statement given there with nothing as foundation or back-up should be regarded as questionable.
Other.
I can't give any actual percentage, since verifying all the facts there would be a practical impossibility. The citations are often trustworthy, but in those case I usually go for the original source. Unsupported assertions in there are treated as such: unsupported and thus possibly false.
It is a good starting point when researching something new, or a quick reference to something you already know, but I don't really take anything in there at face value and I never use it as a source on anything even halfway important.
I can't give any actual percentage, since verifying all the facts there would be a practical impossibility. The citations are often trustworthy, but in those case I usually go for the original source. Unsupported assertions in there are treated as such: unsupported and thus possibly false.
It is a good starting point when researching something new, or a quick reference to something you already know, but I don't really take anything in there at face value and I never use it as a source on anything even halfway important.
I trust Wikipedia almost all the time, though if and when I see something weird I'll know it's lying. I used it for a History Report on the Dictator of Spain, Francisco Franco, and got a 90-something on it.
I will admit that my wording of the poll and it's question has been unintentionally weak. I meant to ask how much it scores on your trust barometer and not how statistically inaccurate you know it can be.
I apologise if some of you have voted inaccurately but I did include an "other" option and I hope you picked that.
I apologise if some of you have voted inaccurately but I did include an "other" option and I hope you picked that.