Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think they're a good read but i do know that just about anyone can edit it and insert BS in it.

You kinda never know what's true or not with Wikipedia but what do you think?

Wikipedia is a semi-credbile source.

Don't they allow the user the option of editing it? To me, that's not very credible.

in itself it is not reliable, but usually provides accurate info. just make sure to research sources to assure validity

It is obviously not compleatly reliable.. (what is?)

but as PVS said it is normally quite accurate. more so than most places on the net anyway.

Yeah. It certainly is reliable. Credible not so much maybe.

Yeah, sure....


just as reliable as public opinion.

We get zeros if we use wikipedia as sources.

No.Wikipedia is defenetly not a reliable source for information.They can type in anything there that they see fit.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No.Wikipedia is defenetly not a reliable source for information.They can type in anything there that they see fit.
Yes, but it is still reliable at the moment....

The discussion tabs/boards for the articles often have more info than the actual article.

A lot of the stuff in there is accurate... Of course not everything is, but most. Just don't look at things that are subjective (or new/controversial topics) they aren't really reliable

People talk a lot about this. Wikipedia is cleary not a scholarly source.

On most scientific issues, Wikipedia has more coverage and is more correct than traditional encyclopedias because articles are written by scientists instead of writers.

However, on other issues, it is much more speculative than a traditional encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a great starting place to get general information, but if you're really trying to be academic, you should reaffirm what they are saying.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No.Wikipedia is defenetly not a reliable source for information.They can type in anything there that they see fit.

No they can't... All edits are moderated, researched... The research undertaken is not that strict though.

It's pretty reliable. Not credible though... Pretty much what everyone else is saying.

Wikipedia is reliable for an over-view of a certain subject, but for accurate information, it's not very good at.

Its reliable, but it depends. Some stuff is made up, but it is corrected, for the most part I find the info I see on there to be accurate.

Wikipedia's article on zoophilia (sex with animals) is a good page longer then its page on Judaism. I'm not sure what this says about Wikipedia, exactly, but I think it says something.

Originally posted by Gregory
Wikipedia's article on zoophilia (sex with animals) is a good page longer then its page on Judaism. I'm not sure exactly what this says about it, but I think it says something.

The real question here is not why the page is longer, but why you were reading it

Nah, they're not too reliable. Sometimes they are, but unless you have other sources to back up what's said on Wiki, it's not really too useful outside of entertainment.

Also, it's called bestiality.

Either way, it always gives you useless information that you can impress your friends with. Did you know that the reason your mouth fills with saliva before you vomit is because it's your bodies natural way of protecting your teeth from the acid in the vomit? I learned that from wikipedia.

I didn't read it; I coped and pasted it into Microsoft to get the page count. If you want to know why, specifically, I chose zoophilia, it's because furries are hideous drama queens, and I knew that if I wanted to find a Wikipedia article on deviant sex that would be as long as the Wikipedia article on a major world religion, Zoophilia was the place to look.

And zoophilia is bestiality; different words for the same thing.

Gregory; who gives a shit if the Bestiality page is longer than the Judaism one?

Did it sound to you like I was making a big deal about it? Seriously, I have no idea what brought that on. Do you just start randomly swearing at people every time you don't get their point?

(By contrast, their Thundercats page is barely half as long as their Judaism page, and their Star Wars page a mere two thirds as long))

The biggest bone I have with Wiki is their article about Batman. Nearly 85% of their information on the character is acurate. There is a few flaws and poor outdated information within the article. If you read the bio and history of DC characters they don't really credit Bill Finger much. That is because there is some obscure details on his contributions to the character. As I debated with other bat-heads he shouldn't be credit for creating the character. Rather he should be credited for writting certain stories. Don't take word by word of what says in Wiki...there are flaws.

Originally posted by Gregory
Did it sound to you like I was making a big deal about it? Seriously, I have no idea what brought that on. Do you just start randomly swearing at people every time you don't get their point?

(By contrast, their Thundercats page is barely half as long as their Judaism page, and their Star Wars page a mere two thirds as long))
Yes, you did sound like you were making a big deal out of it, you went to the trouble of pasting both pages into word to get a page count. I get your point, your point was "What sort of world do we live in where a fetish gets more input than a major religion?". The real question is: What the hell has that got to do with the reliability of Wikipedia?

We live in a sex obsessed world, have you not noticed that yet? Judaism is pretty much set in stone. Whereas a fetish as complex as Bestiality has a lot of sides to it. If you'd bothered to actually read the article you'd know this.

Wait ... taking the ten seconds out of my day it takes to copy and paste something into Word and look at the page count (I did not perform a word count) means that it's a big deal for me? Geeze ... I hate to thing what it means when I spend an hour doing homework ... matrix analysis must be damned near the center of my life, if a ten-second diversion is a "big deal."

Are you seriously trying to convince me that having sex with animals is more complex then Judaism?

Regarding your question ... did you see where I said that even I wasn't sure what it said about Wikipedia? Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

Originally posted by Gregory
Wait ... taking the ten seconds out of my day it takes to copy and paste something into Word and look at the page count (did I say word count?) means that it's a big deal for me? Geeze ... I hate to thing what it means when I spend an hour doing homework ... matrix analysis must be damned near the center of my life, if a ten-second diversion is a "big deal."

To answer your question ... did you see where I said that even I wasn't sure what it said about Wikipedia? So don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
Page counts and word counts take pretty much the same length of time so that's just irrelevant and it's still more of a big deal in comparrison to simply answering the threads question.

No, see I can look at the bottom of the page and find the page count. I don't have to do. As far as I know, you cannot find the word count without performing some sort of command.

(The Wikipedia article on homosexuality is also shorter then the article on bestiality, come to that)

Originally posted by Gregory
No, see I can look at the bottom of the page and find the page count. I don't have to do. As far as I know, you cannot find the word count without performing some sort of command.

(The Wikipedia article on homosexuality is also shorter then the article on bestiality, come to that)

Well, on my Word I have a toolbar that shows the word count automatically. srug

Edit: I don't give a shit about it being longer, I just give a shit about your ignorance.

I am consumed with jealousy.

Wikipedia is a great springboard for looking up a topic. Whenever I use it to look up something, I always double-check by looking up the facts in more reputable. And the stuff I found on the Wikipedia article is usually correct.

In an article in my college's newspaper, they did a fact check, and Wikipedia's accuracy is actually comprable to Britannica. The fact that anyone can edit it is actually beneficial, I think, because the majority of people contributing actually want to help.

Originally posted by Strangelove
In an article in my college's newspaper, they did a fact check, and Wikipedia's accuracy is actually comprable to Britannica. The fact that anyone can edit it is actually beneficial, I think, because the majority of people contributing actually want to help.

There was a study that found its scientific articles to be more accurate than Britannica's

Originally posted by amity75
Either way, it always gives you useless information that you can impress your friends with. Did you know that the reason your mouth fills with saliva before you vomit is because it's your bodies natural way of protecting your teeth from the acid in the vomit? I learned that from wikipedia. What?

Originally posted by lord xyz
What? Seriously, do a wiki search on "vomit". God, the things we do at work when bored...

Originally posted by amity75
Either way, it always gives you useless information that you can impress your friends with. Did you know that the reason your mouth fills with saliva before you vomit is because it's your bodies natural way of protecting your teeth from the acid in the vomit? I learned that from wikipedia.

That's just awesome.

Originally posted by Alliance
There was a study that found its scientific articles to be more accurate than Britannica's

I read that in The Daily Telegraph a few months ago.. w00t

Didn't read all posts......but IMO, it is just a view...not god, and not
the finial factor.......Only a view from one source.

It is, but it is not the only source, obviously. This is the type of question asked by people who lost a discussion on the KMC forums.

Thanks...........

and true.

Things can be in dream;, and can be beyond ...........

nope. not reliable.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I think they're a good read but i do know that just about anyone can edit it and insert BS in it.

You kinda never know what's true or not with Wikipedia but what do you think? I've found it to be pretty much fact, though we should always look to other sources...........can't take just one ya know.

Well any false information is taken out, Moderators check things, and the page is locked while Members find factual info, so YES, it is reliable, most of the time, but the BS is always fixed

Yes, plus pretty much all factual info needs to be cited or referenced or else they will edit it or put a disclaimer that it might not be accurate. Its good for a general overview of topics, but in depth articles would be better suited to academic sources.

It made me laugh so much, that bit on Weird Al's song White & Nerdy about editing wikipedia.

Ah... wikipedia is about as accurate as any nonacademic on-line encyclopedia can be (maybe a bit more accurate) - as a rule no university student would be caught dead using it as a source, though some use it for a braod and general outline of something sometimes, just to get a brief outline.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n159/bubba1984_2006/im20in20ur20fridge20eatin20ur20food.jpg

Wikipedia sucks; encyclopediadramatica.com is better.

people in this thead have said that theres a lack of control in wiki, that you can type " what ever you want"

Test it, i can tell you, i once put in some random shit to do with my school and it took all of 30 seconds for it to be deleted.
My point is that there are moderators to desipher whats sounds credible not acurate just credible.

I'm bored... gonna go to wiki and edit something to sound realistic but is actually complete bullshit...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I think they're a good read but i do know that just about anyone can edit it and insert BS in it.

You kinda never know what's true or not with Wikipedia but what do you think?

No, it's not an academic source and as such should NOT be relied on in an argument. It can provide some information but don't quote it or refer to Wiki in an argument. Plus on some pages the bias is disgusting.

Originally posted by Alliance
There was a study that found its scientific articles to be more accurate than Britannica's

Yes sir!

A study was conducted that compared Wikipedia to Britannica, and it was determined that they are equally reliable when it comes to accuracy.

so I guess the answer to this thread is "yes".


http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

There is been improvements since last year. Certain articles are now locked to avoid vandalism. So it's looking better.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes sir!

A study was conducted that compared Wikipedia to Britannica, and it was determined that they are equally reliable when it comes to accuracy.

so I guess the answer to this thread is "yes".

The study is questionable (in fact Brittanica wrote a rather rude rebuttal to it)

I like Wiki . . . as long as you don't take it as absolute fact it's not bad for a starting point in research.

Sometimes Yes Sometimes No

Depending on what you're looking for. Something really popular among people might get changed up by someone who thinks they know it all but they fail to understand the full scope of it leaving out key points and such.

I've seen this a lot. I look up something one month then the next month I look it up it's completely changed and filled with somebodies opinions.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I think they're a good read but i do know that just about anyone can edit it and insert BS in it.

You kinda never know what's true or not with Wikipedia but what do you think?

The ppl who run it, they verify all the info.

I remember I vandalised a page by writing a load of crap on it, cant remember what it was about but it was fixed like half an hour later.

Wikipedia is reliable in that it is usually fairly credible. It allows for an overview of a subject and most of the community prevent retard-rape of articles.

I watched a TV show a while ago and they said that Brittanica beats Wikipedia on credibility of Articles and History but Modern Culture and the ability to find whatever your looking for, are Wikipedia's territory.

P.S My School accepts Wikipedia as a credible source for Y7-Y9 but during GCSE's you need to find better sources

Do remember that even if Wikipedia is 100% reliable- which it is not- it is useless as an academic source as it is anonymous. References that a. give no credit or b. no information as to who the person is so as to establish them as a relevant person to quote... aren't actually genuine references at all, which is why, as Irene mentioned, she gets zeros.

Wikipedia's founder has outright told people NOT to reference it. Hard to argue with that. Of course, as he also pointed out, you shouldn't be referencing any encyclopedia, and more fool you if you do.

You know the risk you take if you use Wikipedia as a research tool. Apply some sense and you will be fine. And all the decent wikipedia articles are themselves referenced- find and use the sources.

Semi-credible sounds about right.

Also zoophilia and bestiality are not synonyms.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Also zoophilia and bestiality are not synonyms.

Speaking...mmmfff...speaking from....mmmfffff...hehe....speaking from experience?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Also zoophilia and bestiality are not synonyms.

Whats the difference?

The former is a paraphilia, the latter a sexual activity. Ironically even wikipedia notes this. However it then contradicts itself using the term zoophilia to refer to bestiality - which probably doesn't say much for its reliability.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Speaking...mmmfff...speaking from....mmmfffff...hehe....speaking from experience? I suppose that warrants one of these droolio.

Usually the info on Wiki is pretty accurate. Seldomly its not, but if its not then its usually corrected. Its a good place to quickly find out information on a particular subject, just don't be footnoting Wikipedia anytime soon...its not a scholarly source.

Is anyone els here an editor at Wikipedia?

I edit articles on Wikipedia, but never to add stuff, because if I know something it's usually already there. So I do technical stuff like grammar and writing the codes for tables and shit like that.