Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have found it handy and generally pretty reliable, but the idea of considering a site where anyone can change just about anything any time they want as an authoritative source is IMO laughable.
Then you mean that you're looking up things you already know about from other sources? I mean, just how do you know it's reliable?
When I found out that anyone can go in there and write anything on a given topic, that fact determined for me that I'd not even go there for info. What's the purpose when you don't know if it's true or not?
And I know of an organization which was written about by somebody or a group of persons who were being completely untruthful and hateful in what was written. In fact what was written was slanderous. When the leaders of the organization found out this had occurred, the good part was that they could go in there and clean it up, so to speak.
Especially after knowing this had happened to people I personally know and respect, I've had nothing to do with that web site.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,089,277 times
Reputation: 3995
Wikipedia may be accurate in many instances, but it may not be accurate. It's just like any single reference or information source in that regard, though it may change more frequently than most.
I think it's generally a good idea to use multiple sources when doing any serious research, and to follow up on any references present at the bottom of a given Wikipedia article (or article in any other publication, online or offline) to make sure the contents of those references are fairly represented in the article.
I think it's generally a good idea to use multiple sources when doing any serious research, and to follow up on any references present at the bottom of a given Wikipedia article (or article in any other publication, online or offline) to make sure the contents of those references are fairly represented in the article.
And that's the answer. Never assume that anything you find on the internet is fact; always verify independently. Even articles in major newspapers can be misleading, biased, or downright wrong.
Back to Wiki, I use it regularly. It's very useful as a starting point when researching a new topic, even if the only solid information you get out of it is a list of words and phrases that can be plugged into Google or Bing. Non-controversial fact-based articles are usually pretty accurate. But as a regular editor of a couple of pages, I can testify that the number of well-meaning but incorrect edits are astounding. Maybe the edit is true from that person's experience, but doesn't fit the global experience or Wiki's guidelines. And just because your edit got deleted doesn't mean an admin did it; anyone can edit.
The Wiki articles on controversial topics aren't worth internet bandwidth. Most are "adopted" by people who constantly watch for any changes that disagree with their personal point of view. Three or four dedicated watchers can keep any page locked down indefinitely.
I'm getting quite a chuckle from this thread. Specifically the mention of the owners of Wiki having an agenda and anyone being able to add whatever they want, true or not.
Yet the same people who wrote these comments will rely completely on a history book from the library.
Remember that history is written by those who win wars and take over civilizations.
History is written by the "winners", which is only "accurate" from their point of view. If the "losers" had written the book it would tell a different story.
Those winners had an agenda and were able to write whatever they wanted to true or not. Sound familiar?
I'm getting quite a chuckle from this thread. Specifically the mention of the owners of Wiki having an agenda and anyone being able to add whatever they want, true or not.
Not specifically the owners (is there really an owner?) but the users and more importantly the higher level members. I've cited one instance at the beggining of this thread and it's a very high profile topic too. Read up on Mr. Connolley, his story has been well documented, even on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is known to have an extreme liberal bias and nothing on it can be trusted. Especially the sections on climate change and evolution.
I agree there's a distinct liberal bias in many of the articles, but I think it's going a bit far to say "nothing on it can be trusted". The tricky part is knowing which is what and that for me, makes using Wiki generally a waste of time.
On the very same search results there usually will be many other sources listed and I try to choose from a known source who will have at least a modicum of objectivity and clarity about the topic.
I agree there's a distinct liberal bias in many of the articles, but I think it's going a bit far to say "nothing on it can be trusted".
Agree. I am NOT a fan of Wikipedia but I do use it to look up dates or little facts, like the other day. Watching Jay Leno and he said something about someone's kids. I thought "this dude cannot have kids to say something like that", Google > Wikipedia > Jay has no kids.
Things like that can be trusted but otherwise I almost always skip the Wikipedia link.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
