Wikipedia's Accuracy

[Exterminas]

For scientific work there is no reason to use wikipedia.

If you are looking at an accuarte article, there will be sources, noted down at the bottom of the page. So you can just go and look into these books yourself, write them down as sources. You might even find something interessting that the author of the wikipedia article didn't consider worth mentioning.

And if you are looking at an article without sources or with just one it is about as reliable as the scribblings on a bus stops toilet wall. Sure you can just write it down and pretend to have a source, but these things can get you into real trouble once the stuff you write actually gets checked, like in universities.

Also wikipedia isn't complete. The articles that exist might be mostly accuarte, but some things aren't existing in wikipedia. For example, I reacently discovered that in the german version of wikipedia there is no hint or entrance to who designed the SS-Uniforms. (Somebody on a forum claimed they were form Hugo Boss, which I wanted to check). Only in the english version there is an article about that guy.

Bottom line: Don't use wikipedia for serious stuff, you will just get called out for it and won't learn how to research properly.

 

[DarkGargoyle]

If you are ever going to use Wikipeaia as a source, do not take the information off it directly however do go the sources that they provide and check to see if the site is reasonably accurate then copy that.

That's the bunny. It can be used as a start point for related terms and real sources.

I haven't had to write too many papers, but much more often I used it for a quick summary while cramming for some test or other.

 

[Queen Michael]

Oh, and by the way; of course your school won't acknowledge that Wikipedia generally is reliable; if they were to do that all the students would make up stuff, put it on Wikipedia and then insist that they had a source for their statements.

 

[Exterminas]

Oh, I would like to add another story that is somewhat relevant:
A while ago, somebody here in germany discovered that the rhine (no idea how you english-folk spell that, but I mean the river between france and germany) was 50 kilometers longer than everybody thougth. The reason for this is that there has been a mistake in some ancient book about the river where people copied that number from. The copied number was copied again, and so on. Nobody ever tried to check weahter or not it was accuarate, even with satellites around.

That's were trusting in sources can get you.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

I'd never put 100% faith in something I've read there, but the fact that all edits and submissions need to be verified and sources need to be stated gives me a lot of confidence.

 

[Julianking93]

I've hardly ever noticed false info on Wikipedia unless it's someone trolling the page like when I was last on the "Lamb of God" page that read...

Lamb of God are a bunch of fucking retarded pussies who piss their pants on stage and can't write a song for shit

Other than that, it's usually pretty accurate but if it isn't, it's usually fixed pretty quickly.

 

[reg42]

I've hardly ever noticed false info on Wikipedia unless it's someone trolling the page like when I was last on the "Lamb of God" page that read...

Lamb of God are a bunch of fucking retarded pussies who piss their pants on stage and can't write a song for shit

Other than that, it's usually pretty accurate but if it isn't, it's usually fixed pretty quickly.

Sounds accurate to me snark, snark

OT: It's alright for getting general ideas of things. I find it useful for looking up album information, or doing a half-arse school project.

 

[fletch_talon]

Generally accurate and well maintained.
However you understand the hesitation schools have to accept it when you see "Robin Hood was a famous gay" as part of the article of the charactr.

 

[Buck Wilde]

Pretty much what has been said before, pretty reliable with the exception of things that are obviously untrue because someone is just fucking around. Also it's only accurate when it supports your claim apparently...

 

[Snor]

its as accurate as a balistic pie.
hmmm.
pieeeeee..

pie not cheese?

i usually use wikipedia to find sources

 

[Marter]

If there is false information, it's usually really clear. It also tends to get fixed rather quickly, so I see no issue with using it.

 

[azncutthroat]

Wikipedia is basically a collection of sources that back up the articles in it. So no, you can't use wikipedia.org, BUT you can use the sources a wikipedia article has cited.

 

[Branches]

As a former HS Journalist, we were told to never quote Wikipedia directly unless there was a source behind the statement.

However, A lot of it is very accurate, and the staff who maintains the site holds themselves to the Nth degree. Some things get through, but there are at least 3-4 people on it before it becomes a problem.

 

[chaos order]

there was only one time where i found something false on wiki and it was pretty obvious. i was doing a project on napoleon in gr11 and i wanted a list og his battles, and in that list there was the battle of F*** you right now

 

[captainwolfos]

Well, I've found Wikipedia to be fairly accurate with most things, and my college actually allows me to use Wiki for references. Which is good, because I mostly go to Wikipedia for things.
That said, however, it is often quite apparent when something has been edited for the lulz. I once read an article on the Third Reich for a history paper, and it mentioned something about Hitler being the top gorilla who went to war because he ran out of bananas or something ridiculous like that.
I also read an article about genetics for my Animal Management course and about halfway through a paragraph it cut out and read 'I ATE AVRIL LAVINGE'S ASS'. So I think that bit might have been edited. I may be wrong.

 

[Limzz]

If you have any research skills whatsoever Wikipedia is an excellent source. You need to check the specific page's sources and such but if anyone has written fake shit for the sake of being an asshole it will be blatant. Nobody is going onto Wikipedia and saying "hurrhurr, I'm gonna say that Mark Twain was born in Kansas City instead of Florida, MO!"

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Accurate, yes. Vandals that run wild, yes. There is a town I live close to that wikipedia says "Is a town made in Satan's name because old route 66 runs through it" and something about a lot of sodomy.