Wikipedia - How/when do you trust it?

Anybody can register a .org domain; it doesn't say anything about the site parked there.

You actually need to be a postsecondary institution to register a .edu domain, but typically all instructors and maybe even all students get some webspace, so being on a .edu domain doesn't necessarily say anything about the quality of the information on an arbitrary page.
 
http://brandonontheinternet.blogspot.com/2009/05/editing-wikipedia_13.html

edit: to explain to Stigmatised, i made that earlier tonight before seeing this topic and i thought it was a funny coincidence. there really is no point to the joke except maybe to point out the ease with which someone could edit a wikipedia article to say something ridiculous. i didn't really edit the article (but i do think that badminton is a pretty funny sport all in all).

edit: and in my experience wikipedia editors are pretty quick! one of my friends edited my name into the "other meanings" section of wikipedia's page on cum shots and it was removed by someone within 5 minutes

edit: i find wikipedia pretty lacking when i need sources for the papers i've written... though i agree you can find some information by looking through the article's sources, i don't recommend relying on wikipedia except as as a way to see your subject at a glance. i've been using things like JSTOR or even Google Scholar to find reliable, in-depth content. it just takes a little more searching.
 
What is your point Foreys? You miss the whole point. Yes, it can be edited by people, yes there is nothing stopping me editing an article with something stupid. But how long before that is corrected by someone who isn't so immature? Not that long probably. If an article has continued abuse, then it could be made so its only edited by members, meaning a lot of the abuse would vanish, possibly even completely. If one person consistently abuses it, nothing is stopping them having the privilege of editing articles being taken away.

It is similar to this forum in a way in fact. There is nothing stopping people from posting crap/trolling and generally breaking the rules, whether or not they are registered, but if they do, they are punished and whatever violation they did is dealt with in the same way an abused article is fixed. It really is simple, and overall Wikipedia is a very reliable source, although I wouldn't recommend using it for school work, but instead linking to its sources.

Most of peoples users edits are stupid and blatantly obvious (as shown above), the people that can go into articles and make subtle edits are the more difficult ones as less people will notice them, meaning they will hang around longer.
 
I think his point was more to do with the level of bravery of badminton players.

Which technically wasnt related to this topic but I'll let it slide because he was making such an adorable face.

Have a nice day.
 
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source; it's sources in articles are. I trust any article that cites sources and isn't part of an edit war.
 
I personally trust Wiki. As most of the facts that you find on it are true. Sure people can edit it, but the mods there can find out and just change it back.

I will trust Wikipedia with most facts when it comes to school and stuff, and so do most other people. If you're quickly looking for some info on a certain subject, normally the first website that would come to mind use would be Wikipedia.
 
I'm a university student student studying to become a teacher. I use Wikipedia for source hunting rather than information gathering. I usually read up on stuff on Wikipedia, but I never paraphrase it or use it in assignments or essays. I often, however, use the same sources that the writers of Wikipedia articles does, but I would never cite Wikipedia as the source itself.

Also, part of my education is teaching at local secondary and upper-secondary schools (i.e. students aged 13-18), and if one of them hands in an assignment with Wikipedia cited as a source, I usually accept that. It is that reliable, to me at least.

The problem isn't really about the "anyone can edit" policy. Stephen Colbert demonstrated what the problem with Wikipedia is by editing an article himself once. He demonstrated that the facts on Wikipedia are not (in some cases) based upon reliable sources, but a majority vote that decides what is reliable and what isn't. Thus, some articles on Wikipedia are not based upon what the truth is, but rather, what people's perception of the truth is.

That said, I think it's a brilliant project, and I often read articles for fun.
 
It is extremely easy for someone to edit it to look stupid and the moderators dont find everything, a page on my school for ages took the piss out a lot of our teachers-obviously edited by people from my school-this just shows how untrustworthy and stupid it can be.
 
RB Golbat said:
What i find funny from that story, as that everyone in this topic seems to know how to use Wikipedia correctly, yet the people who tell us to never trust it use it without checking for sources. Maybe the news media would be best to take their own advice and not rely on wikipedia.
Click to expand...
People here, and especially on Congregation, are pretty savvy when it comes to the web. This idea of user-generated content is new, but we've grown up with at least the internet for a long time. The generation before us? Not so much.
 
joel22 said:
It is extremely easy for someone to edit it to look stupid and the moderators dont find everything, a page on my school for ages took the piss out a lot of our teachers-obviously edited by people from my school-this just shows how untrustworthy and stupid it can be.
Click to expand...
Not really, only in articles which aren't that popular, for they aren't checked often. Otherwise it would be removed. For example, you edit something stupid in into a popular article such as, Swine Flu, it will be noticed straight away compared to if you did it to some school which only a few people (who are probably from that school, and possibly did it), would see. Touché?
 
TBH, I don't take crap from people who say that Wikipedia is crap. Wikipedia seems to be the next best thing for information next to big-money search engines like Google, Yahoo, AOL, Ask, etc. Wikipedia's policy that everyone can edit, imo, seems to be it's strengths. However, it's safe to say that Wikipedia does get it's fair share of trolls. Otherwise, what would the internet be like without trolls?

Back to point, Wikipedia should be in the top 10 list for usable information. Again, the search engines generate more results on the topic whereas Wikipedia can narrow down to more important information. But, it depends on what information you need.

My school's created this 'Wiki Free School Zone.' So, I can't get on Wikipedia in school. I have to use the crappy school search engines like Nettrekker and our school's homepage search engine. It's crap. Wikipedia is useful for all and although it has trolls, it should still be used. If I find any information that's wrong, I go into the article and fix it. It's just the right thing to do. Obviously, the trolls don't stop Wikipedia from being banned from all schools, not to mention a very reliable source of information.

Just my 2 cents.
.
.
.
Actually, 3 cents, 3 paragraphs.
 
I think that Wikipedia is generally a reliable source for information. I do not believe that it is acceptable to use it for an academic paper, however, because even though the "anyone can edit" policy is one of its strengths, it still needs to be checked with other reputable sources. The one good thing about Wikipedia is the works cited at the end, because it generally has the reputable sources that they derived the information from, and in many cases I can use those sources for my papers.
 
For the most part, I find Wikipedia pretty reliable. There will always be historical inaccuracies- "To the victor goes history." British history books don't tell quite the same tale as our's do about the Civil War. We're not the heroes in them, we're the extremist revolters who were by definition terrorists. Wikipedia almost always removes this bias and bases things factually. Of course anyone can write whatever they want, but it's not like it stays there. That is Urban Dictionary. Look, I once editted a page on Wikipedia concerning the Inheritance Cycle. This was after the announcement that it was indeed not a trilogy, but a cycle- and also before I had yet to hear about it. I thought there was an error on the page and (thought) I corrected it. Satisfied, I navigated elsewhere, and when I came back five minutes later it was fixed. What I'm saying is, people are constantly going over the articles to ensure accuracy. For the most part, Wikipedia has its shit together.
 
I've found that Wiki is almost always dead on when it comes to entertainment like video games or comic books, but much less accurate when it comes to historical figures and academic work. Its not a bad place to start looking at info, just not a good place to stop.
 
Wikipedia has been extremely useful for quick almost always accurate information. It annoys me when a teacher tells us not to cite Wiki, because other internet sources can be inaccurate as well! I would never recommend anyone to complete a whole research project using Wiki, but it is definitely a great way to begin research IMO.
 
I really do get the information that i want for school projects from wikipedia! I strongly believe its a great encyclopedia with valuable information! But sometimes when they refer to history they do mistakes! Thats sad!
 
I usually use it just for fun, if I want to look up some information on a topic that isn't for anything serious. For example, I use it a lot to gain info on bands that I am unfamiliar with and stuff like that. I can't really use it for school or anything since they have deemed it an untrustworthy source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top