Poll: Wikipedia

[muckinscavitch]

For what I use it for, I can think about the info and sort of decide whether or not it is true or not. One of the biggest factors is the references. Wikipedia is no good for school, but the references used on wikipedia are great for school usually.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

I always say "Wikipedia and it's sources". If I am in any doubt I just check the sources and I have yet to be disappointed.

 

[standokan]

It's handy but its no source for making projects for school, believe me i got a 5(out of 10) because of wikipedia's wrong info, but it's my fault for being lazy i guess -.- .

 

[Saul B]

You hear it everywhere. "Wikipedia can be edited by any one", your teacher will tell you Wikipedia is not source material etc. But how accurate do you think Wikipedia is?

I would put myself in the second category. I believe Wikipedia is edited by people who care enough to be critical with scientific theories, history books and other source materials. How about you?

Well wikipedia uses secondary sources. I use wikipedia to link me to useful sources which I can then use as a proper source.

 

[DustyDrB]

Wikipedia is like a google of encyclopedias. It's a good way to find things.

I use it myself from time to time. The trick is, don't quote wikipedia, check the sources, and quote them.

This is the way I view it.
The thing about Wikipedia is that those who write the articles are often (over)passionate about the topic. You'll end up with an article that is easily 4x the length of a more scholarly encyclopedia. Yes, this often leads to more errors - or at least more opinions rather than facts - but the extra information is often helpful. Helpful, that is, as long as you follow the link to their source on the given information.

 

[Davey Woo]

Everything I've looked at on Wikipedia has been 100% accurate.
My college told us not to use Wikipedia, but then used Wikipedia pages as sources for most of our supporting documents.

 

[SpaceCop]

Careful now. Wikipedia is well known for being heavily biased and for obfuscating issues with liberal denial. I mean, how can I trust an online encyclopedia that doesn't have entries on Obamageddon or Counterexamples To Relativity?

That's why I use Conservapedia; the roiling circus of theocratic insanity and extremist rhetoric trustworthy encyclopedia.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

For general stuff I want to know, I trust it. For research papers and stuff, I go there, find the info, then follow their sources.

That's why I use Conservapedia; the roiling circus of theocratic insanity and extremist rhetoric trustworthy encyclopedia.

Ahh... the Fox News of internet encyclopedias...

 

[Hateren47]

For general stuff I want to know, I trust it. For research papers and stuff, I go there, find the info, then follow their sources.

That's why I use Conservapedia; the roiling circus of theocratic insanity and extremist rhetoric trustworthy encyclopedia.

Ahh... the Fox News of internet encyclopedias...

It could be worse. [http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page] Although they make it clear that it's not to be taken very serious.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

for the most part its true. And i use it anyways and site somewhere else. But I did see that it said Hitler was over 200 years old once.

 

[technoted]

It gives a rough idea, but a lot of it is a load of crap.

 

[Verlander]

The polls a bit skewed, there should be a 70% or something. Wikipedia is about as accurate as any of the internet

Yeah I realise that and I hope you picked the "98%" or "other" option.

And indeed I did sir. I am an honourary "other" voter

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Nothing is ever 100% accurate, but it's certainly not the worst website like people believe. Say, have you ever edited a Wikipedia article? Do you remember how fast it got changed back? Plus it's got a ton of sources. I believe a lot of what I read, but you still have to skeptical and check the sources.

 

[DarkRyter]

Spoiler: Open!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00

I think Michael from the Office gives it to us like it is.

 

[Broady Brio]

It has to have citations of sorts to stay on Wikipedia. Or so I've heard.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I was researching a Biology paper, and apparently Emphysema "makes ur dick go blue".

Apart from that I've had no real problems with it, so I'm going for 98%

You never know. It could.

As for myself, I haven't found any issues so far, and I cross-referenced extensively with another [reputable] site for a History project.
Wouldn't trust it on its on in terms of exactitude, however. It's very useful for getting the general idea of something.

 

[Quid Plura]

When looking at stuff that isn't being debated, like the year of the Battle of Waterloo, it's accurate. But when looking at stuff like the Armenian genocide by the Turks, good luck finding reliable information on Wikipedia.

 

[Gilhelmi]

The polls a bit skewed, there should be a 70% or something. Wikipedia is about as accurate as any of the internet

I agree with Verlander 70% accurate is the best Wikipedia can hope for being a lot of sources are open to interpretation as to whether or not the sources they use are reliable. 70% sounds right.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Wikipedia is like a google of encyclopedias. It's a good way to find things.

I use it myself from time to time. The trick is, don't quote wikipedia, check the sources, and quote them.

Yep, anyone who doesn't check the sources is pretty gullible. But anyway, bias poll is biased.

100& or 98%? How about an option between 60-80% or so?

I trust it mostly. People actually do edit it. I just don't trust highly opinionated topics because people tend to bias those in their editing. IE - religious stuff.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It really just gathers information. So it's as accurate as a mix of all the major sources of information combined, really.

And besides, certain things, like ancient history, may never be truly accurate. Wikipedia just collects whatever other people say.