Re: Is Wikipedia reliable?
Originally posted by FistOfThe NorthI've found it to be pretty much fact, though we should always look to other sources...........can't take just one ya know.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.