Wikipedia and you.

[DasUberCow]

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.

Hehe. Didn't even notice how fitting his name was until you said that.

Anyways, i use Wikipedia a lot, and to me it's the epitome of humanity's collective knowledge. Of course an inherent distrust in your fellow person would lead to you being skeptical about the legitimacy of all of the information, but that's a mere nitpick on a huge, morphing web of information put together by the every-man.

I fully support Wikipedia in both it's cause and in practice. I use it almost every day and i even donated to it when i felt it was the right thing to do.

 

[Samwise137]

Love it for computer stuff, music stuff, and current TV news but wouldn't use it for almost everything else. Great jumping off point for research though. I use it all the time when I start a project.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I think people need to stop bitching about it and moaning on about how it's unreliable. It's a legitimate site that, like all other sources of information, needs to have backed up information. You don't read a book on something and then use only that to write a professional essay, you use a multitude of books to gather as much accurate information as possible.

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

Wasn't it Wikipedia that Watson used to play Jeopardy? Point proven.

 

[Staskala]

Awesome for "casual" knowledge, uttlery useless for "serious" research.

Also, I never really got why people always talk about it's reliability, as far as I know the problem most people have with it is its bias.
As an encyclopedia that cites various sources, the selection of the sources and their interpretation is entirely up to the person who wrote the article,
which makes wikipedia itself a terrible source.

Just look up some historical events in different languages and you'll see what I'm talking about.

When it comes to things like Math or Physics, that aren't open to interpretation, wikipedia's other fault shines through:
It really isn't very in-depth.
Which is obviously fine for an encyclopedia, they are supposed to only give a general overview after all.
Doesn't make for a very useful source to work with though.

 

[Catalyst6]

Awesome for "casual" knowledge, uttlery useless for "serious" research.

Also, I never really got why people always talk about it's reliability, as far as I know the problem most people have with it is its bias.
As an encyclopedia that cites various sources, the selection of the sources and their interpretation is entirely up to the person who wrote the article,
which makes wikipedia itself a terrible source.

Just look up some historical events in different languages and you'll see what I'm talking about.

When it comes to things like Math or Physics, that aren't open to interpretation, wikipedia's other fault shines through:
It really isn't very in-depth.
Which is obviously fine for an encyclopedia, they are supposed to only give a general overview after all.
Doesn't make for a very useful source to work with though.

I'll agree with this. Although, I will admit that it does have one academic use: a well-cited page is a great database for articles relating to the subject. I have access to many databases through my school, but half the time I use Wiki's links instead. Why? Because they're organized, easy to access, and usually completely relevant.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

I find it to be quite helpful for most things. It's a nice database of material all in one place, so looking something up becomes a bit easier. You just have to be careful about what is accurate or not. I just use it for looking up the sources Wikipedia uses itself, so I read the article, then scroll down and look at the sources they used at the bottom of the article and use those articles (if they are reliable), not Wikipedia itself.

 

[Saelune]

I am very trusting of the site. I think people over estimate the vandilizers. I would not bet my life on it (but I would never bet my life on even if I knew my name) Take it with a grain of salt maybe, but I do not think its as false as its said to be. Maybe people just mistake it for conservapedia...thats a different story entirely.

 

[springheeljack]

I like it.I use it when searching for new music or artists

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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?

Wikipedia has been proven (by an independent study) to be slightly more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

This is because error-checkers at published encyclopedias can't get everything right. On the other hand, there are millions of experts making Wikipedia the best, most accurate encyclopedia in the world. This is counterbalanced by people intentionally planting misinformation in Wikipedia. However, this mostly occurs on popular media topics, not basic information.

So, for things like the capital of any given country or basic info on how DNA works, Wikipedia is better. For more popular topics... Wikipedia is more likely to have information, but that information may or may not be suspect.

Take from this what you will.

Oh, I should mention, I teach at a University. I tell students not to use Wikipedia for research papers because you should never use any encyclopedia for a research paper - you use actual research. However, if you need general info or a start on where to look for research, Wikipedia is one of the best resources in the world. IMO.

Edit:

I have used it, professors always say how it is a terrible site but its been good to me.

Those professors are misinformed. They should actually do some research before making random assumptions about thing they know nothing about. I am a professor - Wikipedia is my preferred encyclopedia.

 

[FalloutJack]

Wikipedia is unacceptable by professors in college as a resource for your papers for a good reason. You can go to the places Wiki has links to, but Wiki itself is edited by...well...EVERYONE, ergo not reliable.