Wikipedia and you.

[ToysforGuns]

Hey guys,
I was just wondering what are your personal thoughts on Wikipedia. Do you trust it? Do you hate it? I personally don't believe its as bad as everyone seems to go on about. If it has trusted References then the information is most likely correct. If a page has little to no references, then it could be all bullshit. What do you think?

 

[Nexoram]

I agree with most of your points ToysforGuns. I don't know anyone or anything that could make one suicidal though. In fact I don't really hear anyone really saying shit about it excpet the usual suspects like Fox News and the like. Also, every few days I fall into a trance we'll call a...Wikipedia trance shall we say, I have heaps of tabs open with totally random subjects but I'm utterly absorbed and intrigued by it. It's as bad as sites like TvTropes and Cracked.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Wikipedia is one of the most ambitious projects since Google launched and for the most part it has been a vital resource for anyone and everyone using the internet. It's no more a be-all end-all resource than a standard Encyclopedia, but as a quick-look reference it's invaluable; and the idea of an online encyclopedia, maintained and edited by the public who uses it, is just genius.

Yes, sometimes the information is incorrect (sometimes on accident, sometimes on purpose), but as long as you use it primarily as a quick reference, it shouldn't even matter. I mean, you wouldn't write an essay using just an encyclopedia.

 

[BonsaiK]

Hey guys,
I was just wondering what are your personal thoughts on Wikipedia. Do you trust it? Do you hate it? Does it make you suicidal?. I personally don't believe its as bad as everyone seems to go on about. If it has trusted References then the information is most likely correct. If a page has little to no references, then it could be all bullshit. What do you think?

I find it useful but I definitely don't trust it. The thing that twigged me onto the fact that it was largely bullshit was when someone told me my name appeared in a wiki article. I looked it up, there it was, and sure enough the person who put me in there didn't know what the fuck he was on about. Thankfully I was deleted by a much wiser user shortly afterward.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

Not to be that guy, but there's a six-page thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.269077-Why-is-wikipedia-treated-as-a-reliable-source?page=1] about Wikipedia already that was posted on only yesterday.

 

[Illesdan]

I have learned there are certain things you really can't trust Wiki on, and there are other things that, while it'll point you in a right direction, you better go confirm the information from a more relible source.

I have found this to be especially true about current musical acts. The information can change and morph almost daily, depending on what the trolls feel like telling you on that particular day. It sounds like BosiaK was the victim of a WikiTroll.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

It can be good. But I know that it has its flaws. Like looking at the deck list for Syrus Starter deck and seeing, "Onion Ring of Destruction"

 

[Flames66]

I handed in several college assignments with my only reference being wikipedia.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Not to be that guy, but there's a six-page thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.269077-Why-is-wikipedia-treated-as-a-reliable-source?page=1] about Wikipedia already that was posted on only yesterday.

Your name is HILARIOUSLY accurate.

But yah... this.

 

[BonsaiK]

It sounds like BosiaK was the victim of a WikiTroll.

Not really. The stuff written about me certainly wasn't negative in any way, but it was citing something that I had once broadcast as somehow fundamental to the evolution of a certain musical scene. Very flattering and well-meant, but actually complete bullshit in reality.

 

[Daveeo]

I love it, gives me the general knowledge i need about the certain subject.

 

[beniki]

I agree with most of your points ToysforGuns. I don't know anyone or anything that could make one suicidal though. In fact I don't really hear anyone really saying shit about it excpet the usual suspects like Fox News and the like. Also, every few days I fall into a trance we'll call a...Wikipedia trance shall we say, I have heaps of tabs open with totally random subjects but I'm utterly absorbed and intrigued by it. It's as bad as sites like TvTropes and Cracked.

I want to state my support for the word "wikitrance" to be added to the standard internet lexicon.

 

[Scars Unseen]

The world is a much better and better informed place with Google and Wikipedia than it would be without them. It is certainly much more reliable than advice from friends and family. I wouldn't use Wikipedia on a research paper, but I would and do use it in my daily life for all manner of things.

 

[Captain Underbeard]

It's a great thing. I love having it available to look up little things and th such.

It is definitely not a source to be used in debates, however.

Well, not in intellectual debates anyway. But yeah, I agree Eico.

 

[Artina89]

For studying purposes it can be useful, as it is usually pretty easy to see what is likely to be correct, and what isn't, if there is any point that I am confused on, I will go to the professor in charge and ask them whether or not the point is accurate or not.

 

[Woodsey]

Like I said in the other thread, it has been found to be surprisingly accurate.

 

[ramboondiea]

well i completely avoid it if i need to do anything academic, but that isnt to say i dont glance at it,
it isnt the most reliable source, but if you put in the a little effort to verify the info then its ok

 

[redisforever]

I always have a tab open with wikipedia, and I know that if there is a mistake, I can always edit it. I have done that in the past.