Poll: Wikipedia
- Thread starter Hateren47
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wikipedia is a good place to start learning about something...
However to simply quote Wikipedia is well... Bad form. Hell only reading up one source on anything worth researching is bad form. Trying writing a report in college or University with only one source. Your gonna get a fail. When doing a paper the most i use Wikipedia for is to get a list of sources to go check out quickly. I rarely ever actually read the article itself...
However to simply quote Wikipedia is well... Bad form. Hell only reading up one source on anything worth researching is bad form. Trying writing a report in college or University with only one source. Your gonna get a fail. When doing a paper the most i use Wikipedia for is to get a list of sources to go check out quickly. I rarely ever actually read the article itself...
It's Great! I'm Even Prone To Editing My Town Wikipedia's Page, Claiming It Descends Into Darkness Every Year For 30 Nights 
And It Hosts The World Ping-Pong Championships
And It Hosts The World Ping-Pong Championships
News article just the other day that I read said that when compared to encyclopedias like Britannica, which had something like a 95%+ accuracy (I don't remember if they discussed methodology, but it might have just been comparison to other encyclopedias. I think they mentioned two or three others), Wikipedia had about 85% accuracy.
Personally, I use it as a starting point whenever I need to do a research paper or the like- read the Wikipedia entry to get an idea of what I need to be looking for (e.g., major moments in, say, William Faulkner's life, or important factors in the outbreak of (war of your choosing here)), and usually the sources at the bottom are fairly reliable. But I never quote/cite Wikipedia because A) my teachers would not count that as a source and probably make everything I cited from it count as uncited evidence, and B) whatever I quote might not be there a week later or whenever the teacher is checking quotes/sources, and quoting something that's not there or if the quote isn't the wording used because someone changed it then that looks bad.
By and large though I believe it's fairly reliable, but not a good place to do serious research.
EDIT: Here's a few links on the subject.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm (basically same story as above)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm (criticism of the study)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (dohohohoho see what I did there?)
Can't find the article I read that mentioned 85% though.
Personally, I use it as a starting point whenever I need to do a research paper or the like- read the Wikipedia entry to get an idea of what I need to be looking for (e.g., major moments in, say, William Faulkner's life, or important factors in the outbreak of (war of your choosing here)), and usually the sources at the bottom are fairly reliable. But I never quote/cite Wikipedia because A) my teachers would not count that as a source and probably make everything I cited from it count as uncited evidence, and B) whatever I quote might not be there a week later or whenever the teacher is checking quotes/sources, and quoting something that's not there or if the quote isn't the wording used because someone changed it then that looks bad.
By and large though I believe it's fairly reliable, but not a good place to do serious research.
EDIT: Here's a few links on the subject.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm (basically same story as above)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm (criticism of the study)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (dohohohoho see what I did there?)
Can't find the article I read that mentioned 85% though.
The key is to never use just one or two sources to find out about a subject. I did a paper on the Cuban Missle Crisis and IIRC, I used about 20 different sources and about 1/2 of them varied in minor details.
Wikipedia was one of the sources, actually my first one to get just an overview of it, then I followed its sources and then the sources from those. It was a pain in the ass, but I got the highest grade of any of my profs. classes and he used my paper as an example of using sources to get to the facts.
Wikipedia was one of the sources, actually my first one to get just an overview of it, then I followed its sources and then the sources from those. It was a pain in the ass, but I got the highest grade of any of my profs. classes and he used my paper as an example of using sources to get to the facts.
I often use wikipedia as a starting point for any research projects, however after I've used the more 'credible' sites, it has always been exactly what wikipedia told me anyways.
I'm sure there's got to be some things that aren't totally accurate, but I've found the vast majority IS right.
I'm sure there's got to be some things that aren't totally accurate, but I've found the vast majority IS right.
I use it mostly when i need help with a game or something, but I find it to be typically accurate
Wikipedia is great in the macrodetails, not so much in the microdetails. It's a phenomenal starting point, but if it's your only source, you're shooting yourself in the dick.
Wikipedia leaves a lot of the accuracy to be determined by the user, guided by nice flag bars at the top of the page that indicate possible issues. In most reputable pages, there are footnote citations for reference and pages lacking these get a nice flag bar epitaph marking their inaccuracy.
The reader is given a lot of responsibility for determining the accuracy of the claims, and that's why I consider Wikipedia to be reliable to a moderately intelligent user. As to the objective accuracy of the site based on number of accurate pages, that's impossible to determine.
It's a great source if you have no prior knowledge about something, as other users have stated.
The reader is given a lot of responsibility for determining the accuracy of the claims, and that's why I consider Wikipedia to be reliable to a moderately intelligent user. As to the objective accuracy of the site based on number of accurate pages, that's impossible to determine.
It's a great source if you have no prior knowledge about something, as other users have stated.
I agree with this.cheshitescat said:
I voted other. Some stuff like, I dunno, places, names, (some) history, films, it does quite well. Thats were I would give it 98%. Like if I'm thinking of some event, and I'm like; "Was it is 1534 or 1634?" I go there and it says 1634, I'll accept it.
However, if you're talking about something like, I dunno, philosophy, or other in dept therorys, then steer clear.
i love wiki but its dangerous, u never know what u gunna ended up catching at the end, either facts or lies, but i still love it (^_^)
The poll isn't very befitting, why do we only get three options of percentage with two of them within two percent of eachother?
It's a nice thing to use for quick info and movie summaries in my opinion.
It's a nice thing to use for quick info and movie summaries in my opinion.
