Do you think Wikipedia is reliable?

Great idea, screwed up by people with differing agendas........look up Ferrari 330p4 0846 to see what I mean (unless it's changed again!)

 

The Colbert Report did a nice piece on the phenomenon.

Check out the "word of the day" : wikiality at

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/the_word/index.jhtml

 

Anybody see 'The Onion' article on Wiki where the US was 750 year old, the authors of the Declaration of Independence were on LSD... among other things?

 

Tha wasnt true ?!?!?! Gosh darnit and Ive been home schooling my kids from Wikipedia !

Okay okay... I do use it on occassion for general info thats isnt important. I have noticed my entry is 100% accurate though it was an odd feeling when my friend first told me I HAD an entry..lol

Anyone who uses it as 100% fact is simply naive and ignorant. Theres plenty of reliable sources out there if you need important info.

 

Teachers yell at students who use it as a source for a paper. It is good for trival facts that you quickly google.

 

I use if every so often for basic information but nothing more than that.

 

uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

HAVE FUN!

 

Computer digital information, though very powerful, is not always truth.

 

I'm actually referenced in Wikipedia!! Too funny.

RMX

 

I guess it depends for what you are using it. I would imagine that the biggest problems with wikipedia exist in the "current events" articles - but then, are the major news outlets that much better in telling you the 100% uncolored truth? I guess some people feel the need to argue some of the hot topics and have decided that wikipedia is the place to do it.

I find that the "academic" articles (math, science, economic, language, etc) are generally quite good for basic reference to the level that will satisfy 99.99% of the population, a level comparable to (but often exceeding) a real life hard-cover encyclopedia. For instance, if you want to know a little bit about "scanning electron microscopes," wikipedia would offer a great starting point. Obviously for a more in-depth investigation, a good old fashioned collegiate library would be best. I place the most trust in the academic journals that you can find catalogued in most university libraries. I've even checked wikipedia many times against what I have read or heard from professors, books, experts, and other "esteemed professionals" and I all I've ever seen are very very minor differences. Maybe I've just been lucky so far.

I think it's unfortunate that a handful of people who screw around with a couple hundred articles bring a bad reputation to the millions of other articles that offer good information. The old saying caveat emptor definitely applies not just to wikipedia, but to the whole internet (including ferrarichat). Any good wikipedia article will also have external references to specific claims within the article. Besides, there's no guarantee that ANYTHING you read or hear is the truth - internet, radio, TV, live speech, or otherwise. In the end it's up to each person to determine whether or not what he has been told satisfies his desire for the truth or not.

 

It's not a primary source by any means, but it is a VERY good starting point. Critics often forget that there is a checks and balance system in place. Most of the time vandalism is swiftly handled. If it gets out of control, the article is locked down.

This is by far the most academic and well thought out article on the wikipedia phenomena that I've seen. Definitely worth a read:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia

Relevant section for this thread:

 

FWIW, I picked 6 because it was the only one that said that I thought Wikipedia was reliable. I don't agree with the "facts change" part of it; but I do think that it has a valuable place as a piece of reference.

I also am a big supporter of open soucre software and development. If software is developed on a large scale with the input of thousands, given the right checks and balances, it competes on par with, and often better, than the closed source, highly funded alternative. For me, the same goes for information. The more contributors there are (given the checks and balances in place), the better the consensus. While certain topics will always stir debate and will be biased by whoever is editing at that moment, for the most part, scientific and "factual" information remains accurate with a great bit of detail.

Also, I take issue with the option, "No, people will believe the half truths and think they're fact." It answers the initial question, "Do you think Wikipedia is reliable?" by saying, "no," but the reason given for saying no is basically because the people using it are idiots. That's like saying, "Do you think cars are safe modes of transportation?" and answering by saying, "No, people can drive after they drink beer and get in accidents."

 

We had a shorter way of saying that in the '60s:

GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Funny how you never hear term that anymore.

 

I re-read what I wrote; didn't mean for it to come off so snippy. My apologies; I should really learn not to post in the middle of the night!

I guess my point is that no one should blindly accept any source as "fact" without cross checking the info. Wikipedia's "facts" are based on what the community accepts as fact. For scientific articles, this is fairly cut and dry; hence Wikipedia having a higher accuracy rate than Britannica. For controversial topics, there is more motive for malice; thus, more vandalism.

I use wikipedia quite frequently, and I find it 100% correct many, many more times than I find it incorrect. Actually, I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've found factual errors.

 

Your poll options are laughably biased. You can't actually expect to receive a fair assessment when you have four negative answers, one maybe, and one semi-positive (though it is even more biased than the others!)

 

I believe what I read on Wikipedia with a high degree of certainty(95%+). The poll is laughably biased.

 

The poll is stupid.

How much information we receive daily is unbiased and factually perfect? TV? Radio? Magazines? Newspapers? References from friends? Internet?

We are not computers. We do not store and recall every piece of information exactly as it was fed to us. The more evolved human will take information from various sources, analyze, and think rationally and intelligently. Given that, Wikipedia is a great source of information, it's usually quite accurate and contains a vast breadth of information.

IMO, only a fool would discount it as a valuable tool, as only a fool would regard it as a perfectly accurate tool or the only tool available online or offline.

 

Most factual information to do with law, science, technology and economics is reliable. There is no reason for someone to manipulate it, unless perhaps they're some religious fanatics or the flat earth society, but then the tampering gets picked up fairly quickly and fixed.

When it comes to sensitive issues such as religion and politics, that's when the accuracy becomes questionable and biases start to be introduced.

 

Hey - don't laugh about wikipedia !

This is where Dubya learned Iraq had WMD and figured he'd better attack them before they attacked us.

 

Let's put it this way. It's enough for trivia and stuff I'm curious about, but I refuse to hand in anything with a quote from Wiki. Not reliable enough for that. But enough for me to get the idea quickly.