|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your opinion on Wikipedia... Is it full of junk?
Hi, I'd like to know your opinion on Wikipedia. A lot of people are accusing this encyclopaedia to be full on junk... as there's no efficient control of its content...
Recently, Wikipedia co founder Jimmy Wales has warned students not to refer to Wikipedia…. He said that he gets about 10 e-mails a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has earned them fail grades because they cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says.
What do you think about that?
Last edited by goutha on Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Recently, Wikipedia co founder Jimmy Wales has warned students not to refer to Wikipedia…. He said that he gets about 10 e-mails a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has earned them fail grades because they cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says.
What do you think about that?
Last edited by goutha on Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
It's really useful. The number of good users vastly outnumber the ones who try and ruin it. It helps to use other sites, but wikipedia usually has everytihng you need.
I love Wikipedia but it really does get me down when you're trying to find something out and the page has just been hit by a malicious vandal, changing just about everything about the entry you were looking for. I know these tend to be rectified pretty soon but it still makes me angry, mostly for the inconvenience of it all. Some people really should get a life!
I love Wikipedia too and use it as my preferred search engine in firefox toolbar. But people, don't forget it's only web-resource with free access to modify the content. So you have, at least, compare information with several another sources.
Wikipedia is a great source for information! But you have to take it with a grain of salt on some of the information that is on the site. I would say most of the info is legit but as always people want to "spin a yarn" and make some stuff up for the ummm fun of it. 
Wikipedia is definitely a very good attempt for a good source and information.
I have found very good information from this site..
as far as the warning for students is concerned. i think the limit to which information is provided in wikipedia is limited and if one refers only to this source they are bound to fail.
I have found very good information from this site..
as far as the warning for students is concerned. i think the limit to which information is provided in wikipedia is limited and if one refers only to this source they are bound to fail.
wikipedia is pretty much accurate.. great site for some great info, but not all can be said to be accurate. And moreover it's just a free resource. Getting so much for free is more than enough 
I also love wikipedia. It is a easy tool to get some info fast. But as already mentioned before you have to take it with a grain of salt.
I wouldn't use wikipedia for any really important works because as said the facts can have been changed by someone that wont to destroy this free service. I think that everybody should use wikipedia only for personal things. There are more reliable sources for the important works, such as databases that you only get into from your work/school if they got the rights to use it.
I wouldn't use wikipedia for any really important works because as said the facts can have been changed by someone that wont to destroy this free service. I think that everybody should use wikipedia only for personal things. There are more reliable sources for the important works, such as databases that you only get into from your work/school if they got the rights to use it.
I think wikipedia is the greatest thing to appear on the internet since Google. I sometimes spend hous reading on a multitude of things. Of course it won't be totally accurate all the since since it's an open souce encyclopedia. But even traditional encyclopedia's like Britannica have mistakes in them. Plus Wikipedia covers more topics than a traditional encyclopedia, with (short) articles on obscure topics like Hostess Potato Chips and Wacky Packages trading cards
I like wikipedia too. I think it is a good source for information. Before I read this article, I will not doubt the accuracy of it, because I never found any incorrect information from it.
On the other hand, I am not very surpriesed that they are some problems in wiki. Even for a published book, you may find some wrong information in it.
Just as an old Chinese proverb goes: if you trust everything in the book, then it is better to not read the book at all.
On the other hand, I am not very surpriesed that they are some problems in wiki. Even for a published book, you may find some wrong information in it.
Just as an old Chinese proverb goes: if you trust everything in the book, then it is better to not read the book at all.
I think Wikipedia is great. If anyone ever does vandalize, it's normally fixed pretty soon, so it doesn't matter that much.
It depends, sometimes someone edits an entry, and they aren't supposed to, and you end up with junk. Other times it is accurate.
Popular sources are generally accurate since most would check over it often.
I absolutely love Wikipedia. I've used it many times when I was writing papers (for example, the last one I wrote was on Solar Power) and the article on Wikipedia gave me a lot of good information to use for my paper, including links within the article to explain things that they're referring to. That's what I like. You cannot get that luxury with a regular set of encyclopedias since you'd have to pull out book 20 out of 30 to look up that article. That might take a few minutes. With the use of Wikipedia, it'd only take a few seconds.
The only downside to Wikipedia is that a lot of people vandalize it by editing articles, posting links that aren't necessary as outside resources, adding wrongful information, and making things up. Normally, the people over there, or whoever's watching that article, fixes that vandalizing issue right away. I remember one time I was looking at my Watch page and noticed an article was vandalized about a minute before I refreshed the page, and when I went to the article to remove the vandalism, it was already done. Talk about fast !
I give Wikipedia a Thumbs-Up for what they're doing.
- Mike.
The only downside to Wikipedia is that a lot of people vandalize it by editing articles, posting links that aren't necessary as outside resources, adding wrongful information, and making things up. Normally, the people over there, or whoever's watching that article, fixes that vandalizing issue right away. I remember one time I was looking at my Watch page and noticed an article was vandalized about a minute before I refreshed the page, and when I went to the article to remove the vandalism, it was already done. Talk about fast !
I give Wikipedia a Thumbs-Up for what they're doing.
- Mike.
Yeah, I love Wikipedia. It has absolutely everything in it, even things that are very obscure (and wouldn't be in a 'standard' dictionary). The thing that I love about Wikipedia is the fact that if there's some information missing, you can just edit it and add it in.
I also occasionally visit Uncyclopedia.org. Uncyclopedia is a (pretty funny) parody of Wikipedia.
I also occasionally visit Uncyclopedia.org. Uncyclopedia is a (pretty funny) parody of Wikipedia.
I love Wikipedia. I use it often. But I always check on some other sites as well for references and assurance.
wikipedia is indeed an awesome site!
i'm a student, and so i wud definitely know
i'm a student, and so i wud definitely know
Only about 49.36% full of garbage. 
Just kidding, maybe only 5%.
Just kidding, maybe only 5%.There are too many people using wikipedia for their propagandas.
When i see a Turkish thing there,usually its orign showed as not a Turk.(esspecially big and important people)
Well,they are not going to make anything with talking.So let em talk.
When i see a Turkish thing there,usually its orign showed as not a Turk.(esspecially big and important people)
Well,they are not going to make anything with talking.So let em talk.
I use wikipedia reguarly to help me with school work, and just generally finding information about things i want to know about.
Wikipedia is an awesome website! It has everything and everything you need to know about...well nearly anyway.
Only occasionaly have i found something wrong with the information, but thats probaly because someone has tried being funny my changing it..
So no, i dont think Wikipedia is full of junk
Wikipedia is an awesome website! It has everything and everything you need to know about...well nearly anyway.
Only occasionaly have i found something wrong with the information, but thats probaly because someone has tried being funny my changing it..
So no, i dont think Wikipedia is full of junk
I recommend you to use wikipedia in sciences like maths or physics.But i do not recommend you to use it for history and political issues.Because some users change history for their side.
I really like Wikipedia, as a user and a contributor. There's maybe idiots who like to play with it and fill it with false and stupid informations but there's a loads of backups and stuff like that. I don't like when teachers tell us to never use Wikipedia, as long as you compare with others sources such as dictionnaries it's ok. And I'm sure you always compare when you work on a precise topic. It's the least to do.
Wikipedia is the best...
it gives u information about most of the things that we need to know and on top of all it is free. Wikipedia rocks!!
it gives u information about most of the things that we need to know and on top of all it is free. Wikipedia rocks!!
Wiki.. oh wiki ... The enciclopidia of life....
I have occasionaly seen the whole no data on subject but other than that.. pretty DARN ACCURATE I and loves it..
I have occasionaly seen the whole no data on subject but other than that.. pretty DARN ACCURATE I and loves it..
Some explainations of problems in science are quite accurate. It's the first place to go when I have questions.
Wikipedia is very useful to me espeacially when i'm doing my school projects... My dad who is now gonna own a company about farming strimps and it provides good infomations about it... Click here
Here is an article appeared yesterday talking about Wikipedia credibility. In this article, students warned to be wary of Wikipedia.
Depending on the section of wikipedia where you take your informations, the accuracy maybe very different...
Depending on the section of wikipedia where you take your informations, the accuracy maybe very different...
| Quote: |
| September 18, 2006 at 6:24 pm · Filed under Knowledge Sharing
The reason I am talking about this issue is that I am a student myself and have used wikipedia on more than one occasion to do my research. I scour the internet when it comes to research and it all boils down to few very content rich pages and everytime wikipedia is the one that helps me the most. I was made aware by one of my professors to make sure that wikipedia is only one of the research tools that we use because there are some accuracy issues. It’s a social knowledge base and everyone is an editor and that leaves room for anyone to tamper with articles. Credibility of wikipedia is in question and everyone who uses it should do it with caution. You can readily eliminate any doubts if you research different sources of information but if wikipedia is your sole research tool, you might want to give it a second thought (unless accuracy is not something that bothers you). Don’t worry; wikipedia is here to stay… It received a lot of publicity last winter when a study published in the journal Nature found that “the accuracy of Wikipedia was comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica.” The study found that out of 42 entries, average wikipedia article contained four inaccuracies, while the average Britannica article had three. Now keep in mind, only articles in the science section were in the study. So the accuracy is bound to be good as these articles were pretty in depth. I would like to see someone do a study on their articles on Politics, Religion and History. That should raise some eyebrows! I personally love wikipedia, I encourage everyone to use it. Just don’t make it your only source, we still don’t know really who are the real people writing articles on wikipedia. |
I Love the site, although unfortunatley a lot of the time the info can be incorrect, well slightly, but it still makes great reading
It's the easiest way to find the answer to a question you might have.
Because it is written by normal people not oxford graduates you can understand what it means.
It's really good for anything to do with tech, as it moves just as fast as the slowest bored nerd.
And as far as accuracy, it is updated every second, so it won't become nearly as outdated as books do.
Pretty much useless for credible research projects though...
Because it is written by normal people not oxford graduates you can understand what it means.
It's really good for anything to do with tech, as it moves just as fast as the slowest bored nerd.
And as far as accuracy, it is updated every second, so it won't become nearly as outdated as books do.
Pretty much useless for credible research projects though...
I think the information on Wikipedia is very good. There are a lot of people writing articles and there isn't that many trash. Try for yourself - write some junk into one article and it will get deleted in like 5 minutes.
I could spend endless hours on reading Wiki, really. There is so much to know...
I could spend endless hours on reading Wiki, really. There is so much to know...
Wiki has to be used with a grain of salt anyone who uses it for the only source when doing a paper deserves the failing grade they get.
That being said it is still a great source for information just make sure it is not the only source you use.
That being said it is still a great source for information just make sure it is not the only source you use.
Its very good compared to the junk you find when you google a sirues topic
Well yea. Of course google search is junk for looking stuff up. You are listed ALL the sites that have the word you are looking for in them, sorted by how many links lead to them (from my understanding).
Wikipedia is not completely accurate, since everybody can write in there and, well, not everybody is perfectly correct on what they say. I'm not saying it is complete junk, but if you want true information, go buy an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is, however, much more voluminous than encyclopedias, just because everybody is helping put knowledge in there, not only a group of people.
Wikipedia is not completely accurate, since everybody can write in there and, well, not everybody is perfectly correct on what they say. I'm not saying it is complete junk, but if you want true information, go buy an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is, however, much more voluminous than encyclopedias, just because everybody is helping put knowledge in there, not only a group of people.
I think WikiPedia is a pretty good information resource. Yes, I agree, I think too it is bad that you can't always trust the information, so you should always check the information against other reliable sources, but still...
Still... I like WikiPedia afterall.
And if you really are looking for "junk", check out Uncyclopedia:
www.uncyclopedia.org
Still... I like WikiPedia afterall.
And if you really are looking for "junk", check out Uncyclopedia:
www.uncyclopedia.org
Most of the time, I use Wikipedia for general know-how; I haven't used it heavily on a school assignment, though. Most of the information I've found is pretty accurate on the articles I look through, but some have the occasional typo that I'm always tempted to fix.
One of the things that bugs me the most on Wikipedia is how anyone can edit the content - I mean, it's good to have a people's encyclopedia, but that can only go so far. Another is how the content can go on typo-ridden for days because people don't bother to fix the article.
One of the things that bugs me the most on Wikipedia is how anyone can edit the content - I mean, it's good to have a people's encyclopedia, but that can only go so far. Another is how the content can go on typo-ridden for days because people don't bother to fix the article.
I personally find the website very useful indeed, I actually voted "very accurate" because all the variety of articles I've found on there have been exactly right. Mostly scientific and musical terms I browse for though.
I didn't have time to read all of the thread but wasn't Google thinking of buying Wikipedia because it was slightly out of control or provided inaccurate information? may have been a rumour though.
I didn't have time to read all of the thread but wasn't Google thinking of buying Wikipedia because it was slightly out of control or provided inaccurate information? may have been a rumour though.
IMO, Wikipedia is very informative and got lots of information on almost everyhing under the sun. However, there are some pages that you cant say that are really accurate indeed.
because being an openly editable site, it can be possible for unreliable persons or kids/teenagers or anybody to easily edit the site. of course this does not applies to other more formal and historical facts but on the more mainstream places like animes and such. and there are also those facts that are... being politicked and the people that feels they have the universal right to edit the place does it, making it seems more biased and untruthful.
and about googling topics, all you need to do is to put in the correct keyword but be careful on looking over the links searched. because sometimes, those that are not in the top lists are the most reliable, its just that the technical stuffs like webmasters does not give the proper meta, thus making the site quite hard to search. cant blame them though.
because being an openly editable site, it can be possible for unreliable persons or kids/teenagers or anybody to easily edit the site. of course this does not applies to other more formal and historical facts but on the more mainstream places like animes and such. and there are also those facts that are... being politicked and the people that feels they have the universal right to edit the place does it, making it seems more biased and untruthful.
and about googling topics, all you need to do is to put in the correct keyword but be careful on looking over the links searched. because sometimes, those that are not in the top lists are the most reliable, its just that the technical stuffs like webmasters does not give the proper meta, thus making the site quite hard to search. cant blame them though.
Wikipedia is a brilliant concept. Normally, there would be no better source of information than a compendium of user-written articles. But unfortunately, we do have the idiots running around the internet who like to screw things up.
Maybe some kind of editing system?
Besides the super nerds like me. <.<
Maybe some kind of editing system?
Besides the super nerds like me. <.<
I like Wikipedia but I will not say that it is 100% accurate.
If you use it as a 100% accurate source for you evedence or something else you aren't doing well.
Everybody can add the most great nonsense of the whole world on Wikipedia and nobody will cry less or more.
It is very usefull but far from accurate.
Don't use it as a trusted source, only for some light information.
If you use it as a 100% accurate source for you evedence or something else you aren't doing well.
Everybody can add the most great nonsense of the whole world on Wikipedia and nobody will cry less or more.
It is very usefull but far from accurate.
Don't use it as a trusted source, only for some light information.
Well...
I think Wikipedia is one of the great source in the world.
But I'm not sure wether that is accurate or not.. I was told that there are many wrong information in it recently.
But I didn't check it out by myself.. I just heard.. ^^
I used to use Wikipedia to search somethin. So far most of them have been accurate for me..
I think Wikipedia is one of the great source in the world.
But I'm not sure wether that is accurate or not.. I was told that there are many wrong information in it recently.
But I didn't check it out by myself.. I just heard.. ^^
I used to use Wikipedia to search somethin. So far most of them have been accurate for me..
Wikipedia is just as accurate as a print encyclopedia. Wikipedia has errors, and so has a print encyclopedia. That does not mean Wikipedia is not a great, resource people should use - because it is, as much as any print encyclopedia.
I think Wikipedia is better than searching from google. Wikipedia is easy to use, but it's not too accurate. Sometime we still find blank page.
Wikipedia is very useful for me. I like it. Coming to incorrect information, i think it is extremely small in amount compared to accurate information. There are lots of ill-intentioned ones to enter incorrect articles. Incorrect info lives until it is prooved to be incorrect.
Its Good, But I have to check it with other sources.
i find mostly useful stuff out there in Wikipedia.
As somebody said, the good info (and satisfied users) by far outnumbers the bad.
e.g. I was amazed how broadly covered is maths theory there
As somebody said, the good info (and satisfied users) by far outnumbers the bad.
e.g. I was amazed how broadly covered is maths theory there
Wikipedia is certainly one of the best informative websites i have encountered during the last year
It serves best all my kinds of researches and they've got a French version (and many other international languages) hooked up
Definitions are mainly packed into one single page making it quite smooth and fast to read.
There is no exageration in visual content and the links are usually well picked.
Actually, I have no other quick reference than opening Wikipedia for learning purposes and as an interesting background for my radio shows
The last point I really appreciate with Wikipedia is the concept :
An universal encyclopedia fed and updated by Internet surfers, what an interesting evolution in *** electronic democracy ***
Utopia.
It serves best all my kinds of researches and they've got a French version (and many other international languages) hooked up
Definitions are mainly packed into one single page making it quite smooth and fast to read.
There is no exageration in visual content and the links are usually well picked.
Actually, I have no other quick reference than opening Wikipedia for learning purposes and as an interesting background for my radio shows
The last point I really appreciate with Wikipedia is the concept :
An universal encyclopedia fed and updated by Internet surfers, what an interesting evolution in *** electronic democracy ***
Utopia.
Well, Wikipedia info is submittrd by the people and I guess that might sometimes result in wrong information but as far as my experience goes I've had a fairly accutate summary whenever I've refered to Wikipedia. We also have to keep in mind that some topics are vague as to the events surrounding them. Like the "Philadelphia Experiment" or something, so accuracy can't be expected at times. I also sometimes do have the feeling that the writers are a bit biased like they are trying to shield some parts of the issue. But maybe thats just me.
Well, according to the statistics of this poll, 8% think that Wikipedia is not accurate. It's not a high number. The major part of you think that it's accurate.
Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited website on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.
I think that with all the effort to eliminate garbage informations, it's an accurate source.
Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited website on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.
I think that with all the effort to eliminate garbage informations, it's an accurate source.
i like it, th whole internet is full of junk, so why not a little in wikipedia. If someone uses multiple sources for an essay for ex. they will not be punkd by stupid information..
the rude hand gesture to all those people out there who think wiki might b junk
I think, taht in Czech language is Wiki very accurate. I had no problems with it...
Wikipedia is great, most of the time it is very accurate. To make wikipedia better, it should be locked, so only "trusted" people can make entry edits.
Yeah - a lot of spot - on information.
You'll always get the odd pages stating obvious fallacies...people are, by nature, idiots and like to show it.
But, on the whole, I have found the information to be legitamate.
You'll always get the odd pages stating obvious fallacies...people are, by nature, idiots and like to show it.
But, on the whole, I have found the information to be legitamate.
Goutha's article makes a point. One thing though Wikipedia has improved over the last couple of years with their accuracy. Really I would have never thought of quoting it in my research for school. Maybe I am old school for this but I am still wary of using the web fully for research. I still go to other sources.
I do love going to Wikipedia though. My husband has it as his homepage.
I do love going to Wikipedia though. My husband has it as his homepage.
I think its accurate, I use alot of the information on there in research papers often and I trust Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is great and all..but the reason that I wouldn't use it for school or work purposes (projects, assignments, homework, etc...) is the same reason as most people who don't like it: anyone, anyone can go edit anything; a date, a name, even an entire article can be destroyed and made full of lies by one jerk sitting on his computer who chooses to go mess up the website.
But for little things, such as finding small, quick facts, its good. Not for important things.
^^ The above is just MY view..no one else's.
But for little things, such as finding small, quick facts, its good. Not for important things.
^^ The above is just MY view..no one else's.
it is a verry good and usefull tool but all information should be verified with other sources
There's really two questions here:
Is Wikipedia's information accurate? Yes, I believe so. Most pages are well written with outside references, and the information has been shown to be accurate. Because everybody can edit it, if somebody find an error they can fix it, and while some people may put false information up it's usually fixed quickly. Of course it's not 100% accurate, and just like any other resource you'd want to check your information from several sources, but it's of very high quality and a great resource for research.
Is Wikipedia full of 'junk'? Yes. Yes it is.
Is Wikipedia's information accurate? Yes, I believe so. Most pages are well written with outside references, and the information has been shown to be accurate. Because everybody can edit it, if somebody find an error they can fix it, and while some people may put false information up it's usually fixed quickly. Of course it's not 100% accurate, and just like any other resource you'd want to check your information from several sources, but it's of very high quality and a great resource for research.
Is Wikipedia full of 'junk'? Yes. Yes it is.
Its really usefull.. its really cool to use it to make like site of information or personal space something like that.. I like it
I haven't had any problems with it, in fact I use it quite often. Even when writing a task. I've even known one of my professors at university to use a Wikipedia article as an addition to his course. Not everything will be accurate, there will certainly be bugs in it, but I believe in the goodwill of the ones who write the texts
Might be...
I recently heard a story about someone from my city who got really bad marks at school, because thay had used information from WikiPedia that later was shown not to be correct...
I recently heard a story about someone from my city who got really bad marks at school, because thay had used information from WikiPedia that later was shown not to be correct...
information on wikipedia is quite good... its very handy when u dont want to search for something out of the 10s of 1000s of results displayed by google... wikipedia is gud for that when u want to gain basic knowledge about something
If you're curious, or if you just have a general question, Wikipedia is the best place to go.
If you're writing a paper, or doing legitimate research? No. Don't use Wikipedia. Use it to start leads, but the traditional methods are always better in this situation.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia - it's a brilliant, noble, idea and I hope it continues forever. There's just something very respectable about trying to accumulate as much encyclopedic human knowledge, and then releasing it to the public for free.
The problem is with how people treat Wikipedia. Some people treat it like pure fact, and others treat it like the worst thing to happen to the internet. The site itself is great, people just need to know how to use it and speak of it.
If you're writing a paper, or doing legitimate research? No. Don't use Wikipedia. Use it to start leads, but the traditional methods are always better in this situation.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia - it's a brilliant, noble, idea and I hope it continues forever. There's just something very respectable about trying to accumulate as much encyclopedic human knowledge, and then releasing it to the public for free.
The problem is with how people treat Wikipedia. Some people treat it like pure fact, and others treat it like the worst thing to happen to the internet. The site itself is great, people just need to know how to use it and speak of it.
Wikipedia is really a great source of information. i've prepared projects using Wikipedia and i get %100 points
i think when the contents became junk because of some users, the others can correct it so there's no problem. if nobody looks for it, there's no problem again because it won't affect somebody's school marks or knowledge. but if you look very carefully, you can see the wrong writings are replaced with correct ones by the users.
as i said before, Wikipedia is a great source and will be forever.
i think when the contents became junk because of some users, the others can correct it so there's no problem. if nobody looks for it, there's no problem again because it won't affect somebody's school marks or knowledge. but if you look very carefully, you can see the wrong writings are replaced with correct ones by the users.
as i said before, Wikipedia is a great source and will be forever.
For me wikipedia is an extremely helpful tool, I use it as a language reference but also whenever I come across some confusing thing or the unknown stuff. Wikipedia is a fast and reliable source of information. I've heard that if someone comes and changes data to false date, it is usually fixed within an hour.
The other aspect is that every knowledge you gain in a way other than personal experience requires caution and distance, especially when the lack of knowledge makes it impossible to tell whether the materials are accurate or not. In such situation i guess it is the best idea to compare information from at least three different sources. Afterwards trusting your intuition you may tell what's right or wrong.
The other aspect is that every knowledge you gain in a way other than personal experience requires caution and distance, especially when the lack of knowledge makes it impossible to tell whether the materials are accurate or not. In such situation i guess it is the best idea to compare information from at least three different sources. Afterwards trusting your intuition you may tell what's right or wrong.
I think wiki is pretty accurate not all of it is, but most of it.
I am a fan of wikipedia and would have to say it is full of very good and useful content. I have used it on several occasions to expand my knowledge on a host of subjects (coupled with other sources as well). I have found it to be very very good in fact.
i find wikipedia quite interesting. i did many of my project with the help of article in the wikipedia. the good think about the wikipedia is that its free. where as if you see the encyclopedia like Britannica i personally find it very boring. i feel that wikipedia has covered more information than other encyclopedias.
The more popular articles are very high quality, while the lesser so articles are still very well done, although inaccuracies are more likely with fewer people looking at them.
One thing that does annoy me about wikipedia is people pointlessly arguing over British English and American English spellings, and changing them back and forth in articles. I believe the rule is whatever was there first is what stays.
One thing that does annoy me about wikipedia is people pointlessly arguing over British English and American English spellings, and changing them back and forth in articles. I believe the rule is whatever was there first is what stays.
wikipedia is a great all around resource to find out about pretty much anything. It is not, however, a great resource to use for writing a scholarly report. Though most of it's topics are quite accurate, there are of course all of the wacky smaller topics that get added by whoever wants to add them...and these are always going to be less trust worthy than the more major topics that are more often viewed. But what's so great about wikipedia is that it IS user defined. Because of this, you won't find another encyclopedia that covers even half as many topics as it does.
As it has been said before though, you have to take it all with a grain of salt. But for what it's worth, it's an absolutely wonderful and possibly most importantly, FREE resource that has more information than pretty much any other encyclopedia that exists.
I love it!
As it has been said before though, you have to take it all with a grain of salt. But for what it's worth, it's an absolutely wonderful and possibly most importantly, FREE resource that has more information than pretty much any other encyclopedia that exists.
I love it!
We in Belgium, have a Dutch wikipedia, everything that has been "posted" passes first trough a control centre. And if its good enough then it will be shown.
Grttz,
Grttz,
Wikipedia is not full of junk. To reiterate: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm
Wikipedia is generally good most of the time, and every day it is being updated with infomation so its expected that some things are wrong, as nothings perfect.
Every time I hear about something interesting I always go and Wiki it. Wikipedia seems to be accurate or at least thats what I think.
Wikipedia isn't full of junk..
But some of the articles are wrong, but thats the problem with that free changing thing...
But some of the articles are wrong, but thats the problem with that free changing thing...
I think wikipedia is the great resource for the web. But it is an open souce encyclopedia, Which means it can be open to be abused. Wikipedia covers all sorts of topics and is a good starting point and foundation for information, but depending on what the info is I wouldn't swear by it. And as far as failing assignments and papers if you are really trying to find something out and researching correctly you will look at more then one source. If they failed that is on them for not checking more then one source to verify what they found.
Hmm, Just scanned this topic and even though a number of people talk about it's inaccuracies, I don't think anyone actually pointed any out.
Personally, I think it is a great, not perfect, source of info on just about anything. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for work or school. But keep in mind, I seldom use a single source for anything important. Even before Wikipedia, whenever I wrote a paper I would gather as many sources as I could.
You often hear about textbooks that have incorrect info and encylopedias get updated regularly. If you really have to get it right, get multiple sources! But Wiki is a good starting point that is convinient and free.
Personally, I think it is a great, not perfect, source of info on just about anything. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for work or school. But keep in mind, I seldom use a single source for anything important. Even before Wikipedia, whenever I wrote a paper I would gather as many sources as I could.
You often hear about textbooks that have incorrect info and encylopedias get updated regularly. If you really have to get it right, get multiple sources! But Wiki is a good starting point that is convinient and free.
Wikipedia can be extremely useful, but I've found that it's not always accurate. I treat it the same way that I treat any information from the internet, with a bit of skepticism and a healthy curiosity as to who the author is and where THEY got their information from.
I wouldn't use Wikipedia to do research for, but if I wanted to look something up out of personal interest, it'd be great. My husband loves to use it to look up game facts and other stuff... Before the PS3 was released, he was there a lot reading articles and going to different sites.
I wouldn't use Wikipedia to do research for, but if I wanted to look something up out of personal interest, it'd be great. My husband loves to use it to look up game facts and other stuff... Before the PS3 was released, he was there a lot reading articles and going to different sites.
I'm sure that wikipedia isn't junk, and here is because why:
If someone add's junk to the system, it will be corrected by millions of people using wikipedia. Because of the great number of users, information keeps reliable because the info is checked/read by millions....
A research have shown that wikipedia is often better(more reliable) then the professional paper encyclopedia's. this because the information is alwasys up to date.
Also wikipedia have appointed modderators all over the world, they keep an eye on every page, espacially the controversial subject, they lock those subjects to prevent users to add junk.....
If someone add's junk to the system, it will be corrected by millions of people using wikipedia. Because of the great number of users, information keeps reliable because the info is checked/read by millions....
A research have shown that wikipedia is often better(more reliable) then the professional paper encyclopedia's. this because the information is alwasys up to date.
Also wikipedia have appointed modderators all over the world, they keep an eye on every page, espacially the controversial subject, they lock those subjects to prevent users to add junk.....
I think they do a pretty good job of keeping it spam free and accurate.
Personally, I think it is a great but not perfect. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for work or school.
The information on Wikipedia is good if you need to do like a research paper or need a lot of detail on something. But if you want to find an answer to something, like yes or no, good luck. It has really good information, and even information you don't even need.
I think Wikipedia is excellent.
Alot of people have suggested that wikipedia be locked so that only trusted people can update/edit pages, however I dont think this would work as it is against the main concept of wikipedia. The great thing about wikipedia is that anyone can edit it so you get a wide variety of information, if only a handfull (say a million) "trusted" users were able to edit it, wikipedia would be nowhere near as big as it is now, because you would only have information that the "trusted" users knew.
Alot of people have suggested that wikipedia be locked so that only trusted people can update/edit pages, however I dont think this would work as it is against the main concept of wikipedia. The great thing about wikipedia is that anyone can edit it so you get a wide variety of information, if only a handfull (say a million) "trusted" users were able to edit it, wikipedia would be nowhere near as big as it is now, because you would only have information that the "trusted" users knew.
Wikipedia is the best thing out there. Hate looking in dictionaries? dictionary.com. Hate looking in encyclopedias? wikipedia.com. It's so nice that we have luxeries such as those today. God I hate looking stuff up in books.
Yeah, wikipedia is boss
wow Andrew426, yea u have a good point
Yeah, wikipedia is boss
wow Andrew426, yea u have a good point
wikipedia is awesome. dont hate on wikipedia, instead , you should donate. the largest donation made by someone for wikipedia was five thousand dollars! see if you can beat his donation with 6k! or even 10 if your nice
I just feel that its web is full of junk 
, with a lot of unrelated things. I can't see any accurate materials either 
Last time when I'm having a source searching, I saw many private links to private forums and websites which were set up by the Wikipedians . The Wikipedia system couldn't check these out.
Last edited by ywc1818 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:16 am; edited 2 times in total
, with a lot of unrelated things. I can't see any accurate materials either Last time when I'm having a source searching, I saw many private links to private forums and websites which were set up by the Wikipedians . The Wikipedia system couldn't check these out. Last edited by ywc1818 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:16 am; edited 2 times in total
| dz9c wrote: |
| wikipedia is awesome. dont hate on wikipedia, instead , you should donate. the largest donation made by someone for wikipedia was five thousand dollars! see if you can beat his donation with 6k! or even 10 if your nice |
Someone recently made a donation of close to US$300,000
I don't think that Wikipedia is full of junk... Personally, if I ever see some junk on Wikipedia, I'll just edit it so it's correct
I think the articles on Wikipedia are rather reliable and good, I often check with some other places to see if it matches though. The swedish Wikipedia is a bit better than the english one in reliability due to stricter rules and moderation. I've written some articles there myself too ^^
| goutha wrote: |
|
Recently, Wikipedia co founder Jimmy Wales has warned students not to refer to Wikipedia…. He said that he gets about 10 e-mails a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has earned them fail grades because they cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. |
Are you kidding?!?!
Wikipedia is great! Oh sure, they're ARE people trying to vandalize Wikipedia, but there are more trying to contribute than vandalize. It's a great resource that I trust. If only evil didn't exist...I suspect the information on wikipedia is only slightly more reliable than any information found on the internet. That said, you can't just take anything found online at face value... you've always got to do a bit of digging around on your own.
datter
datter
The only thing that makes me nervous is that users can edit articles so quickly, and there more than likely are people out there with no lives who sit at Wikipedia, putting in false information, just to screw with other people.
I've cited Wikipedia many times in my school assignments, and it hasn't failed me yet. Although after seeing an article get drastically vandalized, I did decide that I should double check information I get from Wikipedia with other sources as well.
Just be smart about it is all.
I've cited Wikipedia many times in my school assignments, and it hasn't failed me yet. Although after seeing an article get drastically vandalized, I did decide that I should double check information I get from Wikipedia with other sources as well.
Just be smart about it is all.
One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it has brought up a discussion of reliability. How much can you trust what is in Wikipedia? How much can you trust an encyclopedia? How do you check what they say? Previously this was only a topic for researchers but now the idea is trickling down to us ordinary people.
Personally I like Wikipedia and often turn to it, but I do not use it as my only source of information.
Personally I like Wikipedia and often turn to it, but I do not use it as my only source of information.
If you *have* to use Wikipedia for your source of information (for example, in assignments and projects), you need to back the facts up with something else, for example, books from the library. Although Wikipedia has a great quality assurance team and administrators who work long hours to keep Wikipedia clean, vandals could still falsify information.
The problem imo, is that the apperance of it is like a official "library" of info. With legitimate facts and so on.
So you might think that the info you read, is 100% fact, but it can be pure speculation or 100% false.
Since anyone can edit the data, i cant really decide if i like it or not.
So you might think that the info you read, is 100% fact, but it can be pure speculation or 100% false.
Since anyone can edit the data, i cant really decide if i like it or not.
I love wikipedia - It's very useful for what I need to know. I do agree, some people will submit crap just for the sake of it. But if you find such an article, you'd know, and you wouldn't take it seriously.
-Rhys
-Rhys
I am a teacher and I think that Wikipedia gives my students exactly what I lacked once. An ability to find anything quickly and the ability to search from one subject to another to topics he or she never ment to cross. It's a great tool. I use it regularly. Whether or not it is 100% accurate is lass important. What encyclopedia is?
PLUS: It is Free! It has a Multi-Language Platform! It is ENDLESS!
PLUS: It is Free! It has a Multi-Language Platform! It is ENDLESS!
wikipedia not really bad. it's so usefull for many people around the world. people searching for free information and many of them landed on wikipedia. in my humble opinion many of them are satisfied by the contents. i hope so
Hmm, well Wiki does have quite a bit of useful info. Meaning if you're looking for a quick formula a historical figures birth date and so forth, Wiki's are great. On the other hand there are many inaccuracies in articles such as theoretical science and philosophy. It depends upon the author, how they describe someone or something is entirely based on their perception.
I am a true Wikipedian, I use wikipedia for everything. Except pictures, that would be near impossible...What blew my mind is a study taken a few weeks before New Years determined that Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica were not so diifferent. Because people can edit the information, it allows for information to differ slightly to what others know. The owner even said that this helps for accuracy because most people who use it, when noticing a difference, they look it up and change it if incorrect. Although, one of my friends had added her grandmother to famous french immigrants...And I even admit I have edited it, but changed it back. So if I hear any of you dissing my lovely Wiki, get ready for my wrath.
Some articles on Wikipedia are filled with junk stuff, but most of the articles i found there are very useful, i use this site to make searchs to my school or just for fun. And i guess its good on the way it is.
i think wikipedia is not full of junk. whenever i failed to search anything on google i go to wiki and find it there. i never experienced junk content yet but for serious line of work i compare with other resources. I LOVE WIKIPEDIA
Wikipedia is an excellent encyclopedia, full of articles with very up-to-date information, exactly because it is the internet community in general which adds information to it, updates it, and corrects it. On the other hand for the same reason these people can also put in false information, whether intenetionally or by accident, it doesn't make much difference to the end user. Still I would say that Wikipedia is a pretty reliable encyclopedia, which can be useful in many situations.
i really like wikipedia, and they do have really high standards for what is allowed to stay or not, most of the time
but if you are using it on a research paper of sorts, it would not be smart to go to only wikipedia and not verify your results on other, more reliable, sources
but if you are using it on a research paper of sorts, it would not be smart to go to only wikipedia and not verify your results on other, more reliable, sources
I would never use it for anything important without confirming the information elsewhere first. For general information it's alright though. It's just a shame that a small number of people undermine it for the majority.
I've seen even the more significant articles remain vandalised for some time though. I don't really trust it 100%.
I've seen even the more significant articles remain vandalised for some time though. I don't really trust it 100%.
its accurate, but if you use it for reserch term paper, you are basically screwed.
| dagurl wrote: |
| I am a true Wikipedian, I use wikipedia for everything. Except pictures, that would be near impossible... |
Wikimedia Commons is good for searching for pictures
I absolutely love Wikipedia. I've used it many times when I was writing papers (for example, the last one I wrote was on Solar Power) and the article on Wikipedia gave me a lot of good information to use for my paper, including links within the article to explain things that they're referring to. That's what I like. You cannot get that luxury with a regular set of encyclopedias since you'd have to pull out book 20 out of 30 to look up that article. That might take a few minutes. With the use of Wikipedia, it'd only take a few seconds.
The only downside to Wikipedia is that a lot of people vandalize it by editing articles, posting links that aren't necessary as outside resources, adding wrongful information, and making things up. Normally, the people over there, or whoever's watching that article, fixes that vandalizing issue right away. I remember one time I was looking at my Watch page and noticed an article was vandalized about a minute before I refreshed the page, and when I went to the article to remove the vandalism, it was already done. Talk about fast !
I give Wikipedia a Thumbs-Up for what they're doing
The only downside to Wikipedia is that a lot of people vandalize it by editing articles, posting links that aren't necessary as outside resources, adding wrongful information, and making things up. Normally, the people over there, or whoever's watching that article, fixes that vandalizing issue right away. I remember one time I was looking at my Watch page and noticed an article was vandalized about a minute before I refreshed the page, and when I went to the article to remove the vandalism, it was already done. Talk about fast !
I give Wikipedia a Thumbs-Up for what they're doing
I think wiki is pretty accurate. If i'm looking up something I usually know a little about it and am able to tell if it's wrong. If somebody's really worried about the information they get from wiki, just google other answers and compare. If they blame their failing grades on wiki...
This is useful and very good. People can know may things from it. As this is done by many people, there should be right thing in it.
Well, I think there is a pretty very pretty small diffrences between then, atleast for me. Google, is for me, a place where I go when I need a site, when I'm in search of a particular site that contains information I need and where I can DO things, which you can't on wikipedia.
For example, on google you find a site on how to build your own PC and you can also buy the parts on that site, but on wikipedia you're only going to find the guide. And not things such as stuff you can buy.
Wikipedia is doing very good, and I sure like the open-edit button but it will never own google for me.
For example, on google you find a site on how to build your own PC and you can also buy the parts on that site, but on wikipedia you're only going to find the guide. And not things such as stuff you can buy.
Wikipedia is doing very good, and I sure like the open-edit button but it will never own google for me.
Beware of using Wikipedia. I think a lot of the information they offer is accurate, but a lot isn't. I remember a classmate who purposely had a Wikipedia account so he could leave misleading information on the page. He's an educator, so he's justified his "malicious" intent (heheh) by making sure his students more diligent in hitting the books instead of instant information found by hitting the search engine. (Ironically my German professor adores Wikipedia! He's put his blind faith in it, he uses it all the time in our classes. Frankly as an English major, that's appalling. I still say, books are the most credible resources! You just have to deal with them being rarely up-to-date, but at least information is valid. No guessing games, or rarely, with printed sources.)
I guess using Wikipedia isn't bad if you are looking for refresher information -- that is, using it as a quick reference guide for something you already know, and have other sources at hand with which you can verify your search. that's more important and the real value of true academic research. but if you're a student who's looking to do a last-minute report or citation for a paper, DON'T even use Wikipedia especially if you're not familiar with the topic you're searching about! You can never trust the content editable encyclopedias bring to you -- a lot of people are probably like my classmate who wants people hungry for instant info to learn their lesson.
I remember a classmate who purposely had a Wikipedia account so he could leave misleading information on the page. He's an educator, so he's justified his "malicious" intent (heheh) by making sure his students more diligent in hitting the books instead of instant information found by hitting the search engine. (Ironically my German professor adores Wikipedia! He's put his blind faith in it, he uses it all the time in our classes. Frankly as an English major, that's appalling. I still say, books are the most credible resources! You just have to deal with them being rarely up-to-date, but at least information is valid. No guessing games, or rarely, with printed sources.)
I guess using Wikipedia isn't bad if you are looking for refresher information -- that is, using it as a quick reference guide for something you already know, and have other sources at hand with which you can verify your search. that's more important and the real value of true academic research. but if you're a student who's looking to do a last-minute report or citation for a paper, DON'T even use Wikipedia especially if you're not familiar with the topic you're searching about! You can never trust the content editable encyclopedias bring to you -- a lot of people are probably like my classmate who wants people hungry for instant info to learn their lesson.
Wiki has too much stuff and some are reliable and some are wrong.........
I think Wikipedia is great because there are many experts around the world that can contribute to it. This is also a disadvantage because now anyone can corrupt the information.
I think you should use the information in it, but you also must use you common cense. Do some further research. Use Wikipedia as a starting point.
Maybe Wikipedia can tell at each topic how many people contributed to it. This will help with accuracy.
I think you should use the information in it, but you also must use you common cense. Do some further research. Use Wikipedia as a starting point.
Maybe Wikipedia can tell at each topic how many people contributed to it. This will help with accuracy.
Wikipedia can be helpful, but shouldn't be cited as a definitive source because the information isn't proven true. I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, but I know it doesn't know all.
hhhm that's interesting. 10 complaints a week. I was told once that the average ratio of complaints is 25/1. That is, for every one complaint you actually receive as a business, website or whatever, there are 25 other customers who are just as aggreived.
This equates to 250 fail grades per week for students referring to Wikipedia. I don't have hit count figures handy, but I'm guessing the number of students per week who use Wikipedia worldwide (Yes, virginia, they have the internet outside the US!) would be of the order of 10,000 if not 100,000. If we assume conservative rate of 10,000 then that's a success rate of 99.75% which is pretty darn good IMHO.
Recently nature magazine (I think it was) conducted a comparison between Wkikpedia and Encyclopedia britannica and they discovered to thir surprise there were more mistakes in the britannica than Wikipedia.
Anyone who's a programmer and who's used open source code can vouch for its quality and Wikipedia is essentially an open source document.
This equates to 250 fail grades per week for students referring to Wikipedia. I don't have hit count figures handy, but I'm guessing the number of students per week who use Wikipedia worldwide (Yes, virginia, they have the internet outside the US!) would be of the order of 10,000 if not 100,000. If we assume conservative rate of 10,000 then that's a success rate of 99.75% which is pretty darn good IMHO.
Recently nature magazine (I think it was) conducted a comparison between Wkikpedia and Encyclopedia britannica and they discovered to thir surprise there were more mistakes in the britannica than Wikipedia.
Anyone who's a programmer and who's used open source code can vouch for its quality and Wikipedia is essentially an open source document.
wikipedia is accurate no matter what people say. ok the occassional one might not be accurate but otherwise its fine. i use it a lot and i'm glad its there because its really helped me a lot.
| goutha wrote: |
| Hi, I'd like to know your opinion on Wikipedia. A lot of people are accusing this encyclopaedia to be full on junk... as there's no efficient control of its content...
Recently, Wikipedia co founder Jimmy Wales has warned students not to refer to Wikipedia…. He said that he gets about 10 e-mails a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has earned them fail grades because they cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. What do you think about that? |
I know it is not accurate.
I have seen many very plain lies when it comes to people's biographies and such. Too many people use it as a form of activism to spread their propoganda about people or events they do not agree with.
Yeah,
wikipidia does have some blatent lies on it but they seem pretty fast at stopping people "vandalising". Other than that I think that it is quite accurate and as a student find it very useful when I need to do coursework etc.
wikipidia does have some blatent lies on it but they seem pretty fast at stopping people "vandalising". Other than that I think that it is quite accurate and as a student find it very useful when I need to do coursework etc.
Some of Wikipedia is wrong, but an extremely large proportion of it is correct. It just depends on what you are looking for and your opinions.
I guess that it all reflects in one of their lesser known mottos:
I guess that it all reflects in one of their lesser known mottos:
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| Can 10,000 monkeys write an encyclopedia? |
| hack_man_ wrote: | ||
| Some of Wikipedia is wrong, but an extremely large proportion of it is correct. It just depends on what you are looking for and your opinions.
I guess that it all reflects in one of their lesser known mottos:
|
I'm ok with you...
Wikipedia is a good reference for personal infomation... but if it's for a high school or university report, you should look elsewhere...
wikipedia is definitely a great way to learn about a subject matter, but it is horrible to use as a SOURCE for writing proper reports and papers
wikipedia will not usually prsent false information, but its information is incredibly GENERAL
universities won't accept wikipedia as a source and my high school has also banned wikipedia as a source
if you're writing a research paper (let's take a history course for example) you topic is required to be very specific, for example 'the significance of tanks in ending world war I'
wikipedia may touch upon some battles and factors that lead to the end of WWI, but it definitely won't give satisfactory data for the significance of tanks specifically
wikipedia will not usually prsent false information, but its information is incredibly GENERAL
universities won't accept wikipedia as a source and my high school has also banned wikipedia as a source
if you're writing a research paper (let's take a history course for example) you topic is required to be very specific, for example 'the significance of tanks in ending world war I'
wikipedia may touch upon some battles and factors that lead to the end of WWI, but it definitely won't give satisfactory data for the significance of tanks specifically
Wikipedia helps me out alot. At school we got different projects now, like in geography some take one country, someone else another one. And its not often that our teacher knows everything, so if the info isent 100% accurate it dosent realy matter.
When i start to get more tests about this stuff, i will always try to use books the first. The internet is to easy to add the wrong info into, so i'll use the web as an "To-lazy-to-look-in-a-book" solution.
When i start to get more tests about this stuff, i will always try to use books the first. The internet is to easy to add the wrong info into, so i'll use the web as an "To-lazy-to-look-in-a-book" solution.
The fact is that Wikipedia, as an absolutely immense source of information on many varied subjects, pretty much anything you could think of even, it is a good place to start. You DO however have to use your brain as well (which can be difficult for some) and be sure that the article posts references and if your grades depend on the accuracy of your information, for gods sake don't be stupid, cross check the information, the wiki articles always have more links down the bottom for you to check.
Wikipedia is as accurate as any other source from the internet. There's no difference. Wikipedia is a part of the internet. Nothing you read on the internet needs to be true as well as nothing you hear or read in a book.
I think the real advantage of Wikipedia is not the articles on normal stuff; Wikipedia probably isn't the best place to get information on the government of Madagascar or the like. But what I think Wikipedia is really good at and what Wikipedia is absolutely awesome for is all the little stuff they wouldn't bother sticking in Encyclopedia Britannica. Want to know about the history of router implentation? Wikipedia that. Want a list of surrealist 20th century French painters? Wikipedia it. Want to know about all the things tangentially related to Frisbees? Wikipedia that right up.
I love Wikipedia. It rocks.
I love Wikipedia. It rocks.
I use Wikipedia a heck of a lot.
Okay so there are a lot of inaccuracies but it generally nudges you along in the right direction and helps you to a point where you can go on euipped with some knowledge to research deeper on the web.
It is an exceptionally helpful and diverse resource, it seems to appear in just about any Google search these day.
I feel Wikipedia and sites like it are one of the reasons the internet is so important or valuable, global knowledge sharing. Finding out thing that you knew little about or even didn’t know existed.
Sure you can knock its inaccuracies sometimes but if that was a death sentence for a website there would probably only be a dozen pages of reference on the entire internet for us to look at. The rest would be games and porn – paradise for some I know.
Whether it is Wikipedia or any other resource from the web, check the facts, check them again and then check them again.
P.S. Don;t forget, as well as serious study Wikipedia is also there for the fun things in life (a bit like the old Yellow Pages ad I guess). So whether you need to know the date of Napolean's death or the height of Hulk Hogan - you will find it on Wikipedia.
Okay so there are a lot of inaccuracies but it generally nudges you along in the right direction and helps you to a point where you can go on euipped with some knowledge to research deeper on the web.
It is an exceptionally helpful and diverse resource, it seems to appear in just about any Google search these day.
I feel Wikipedia and sites like it are one of the reasons the internet is so important or valuable, global knowledge sharing. Finding out thing that you knew little about or even didn’t know existed.
Sure you can knock its inaccuracies sometimes but if that was a death sentence for a website there would probably only be a dozen pages of reference on the entire internet for us to look at. The rest would be games and porn – paradise for some I know.
Whether it is Wikipedia or any other resource from the web, check the facts, check them again and then check them again.
P.S. Don;t forget, as well as serious study Wikipedia is also there for the fun things in life (a bit like the old Yellow Pages ad I guess). So whether you need to know the date of Napolean's death or the height of Hulk Hogan - you will find it on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia it's the best! It tald me all about the solar system, about politics, many different laws, and since wikipedia is the only source i get when I google, thats what I trust and thats the only thing i check out. I'm not sure if wikipedia is accurate. 
Wikipedia has been good to me. Granted I don't use it for important research, but more of general pondering. If it weren't for Wikipedia and Google I'd be without my useless information sources.
| catscratches wrote: |
| Wikipedia is as accurate as any other source from the internet. There's no difference. Wikipedia is a part of the internet. Nothing you read on the internet needs to be true as well as nothing you hear or read in a book. |
There's no comparison between books and the internet. Of course, there are misleading, propaganda books out there but they are exceptions. The internet is the other way around: any crackpot can use the net to "publish" some weird theory, any propagandist can spread misinformation or outright lies. And of course there are some professional websites which can be trusted.
The bottom line is that Wikipedia has many correct, informing articles
but it also has some incomplete or not-useful items 
. It is up to you to also use your brains, other sources etc.smarter, I'm not really ok with you. Books still different from internet.
People still pay 100$ for a book... but they don't really pay for a simple web site with few informations...
In general, books and internet are complementary. You buy a 100$ book, and you'll have access to the publisher website, etc...
People still pay 100$ for a book... but they don't really pay for a simple web site with few informations...
In general, books and internet are complementary. You buy a 100$ book, and you'll have access to the publisher website, etc...
This is quite funny. Today in school, while working on my research project for school, my teacher specifically mentioned to not use Wikipedia because of the same reason you stated. I thought Wikipedia was a very wonderful source and an awesome site, but I guess I thought wrong. It seems so professional and it's really hard to believe the information on there is false, but I understand, as people give their own ideas, the whole concept of encyclopedia just goes down the drain.
I still tend to read that site once in a while though.
I still tend to read that site once in a while though.
It's accurate enough to cite as a source; if a person were to post spam they wouldn't provide wrong info.
| avk wrote: |
| Wikipedia is the best...
it gives u information about most of the things that we need to know and on top of all it is free. Wikipedia rocks!! |
yes its good enough to refer to ,but it depends on us and its really everyones responsibility to report any wrong and help it keep ats its best.
Well I tried Wikipedia a lot of times and their accurate enough to give you what you want. I have tried just playing around with wikipedia and I never came to a subject that leads to trash topics. Well free as it is, it's still a good place to search or look for referals on things that you want to know.
If you didn't get what you wanted then try some other Search engines like Yahoo and Google.
If you didn't get what you wanted then try some other Search engines like Yahoo and Google.
I'm a frequent Wikipedia user. I think that it's a very innovative, very cool database of information. That is not to say, however, that my usage of site is indiscriminatory.
I understand, for example, that I cannot rely on Wikipedia articles when I'm looking for readings on complex concepts such as Hegel's speculative coincidence, or arguments on post-colonialism. When it comes to matters that are generally subjective, I look to Wikipedia maybe for an overview. The site is also a great source if I just want to find out who or what I could read when it comes to anything that has to do with philosophy or aesthetics.
I will not be able to give an opinion when it comes to Wikipedia articles that deal with scientific fact. Although I do read some of them, I would never be able to tell whether the information that has been given needs to be corrected.
All in all, I think that for matters that are not that big of a deal (like who won the Amazing Race and other things like that), it'll be okay to look at Wikipedia. I would still feel much more confident of my research if just treat Wikipedia as kind of a jumping board towards other more reliable sources.
I understand, for example, that I cannot rely on Wikipedia articles when I'm looking for readings on complex concepts such as Hegel's speculative coincidence, or arguments on post-colonialism. When it comes to matters that are generally subjective, I look to Wikipedia maybe for an overview. The site is also a great source if I just want to find out who or what I could read when it comes to anything that has to do with philosophy or aesthetics.
I will not be able to give an opinion when it comes to Wikipedia articles that deal with scientific fact. Although I do read some of them, I would never be able to tell whether the information that has been given needs to be corrected.
All in all, I think that for matters that are not that big of a deal (like who won the Amazing Race and other things like that), it'll be okay to look at Wikipedia. I would still feel much more confident of my research if just treat Wikipedia as kind of a jumping board towards other more reliable sources.
I think there are some good wikis out there.... there are also a few unorganized wikis which make no sense to me, but more often then not I learn something new from them.
thanx,
FE
thanx,
FE
I am writing just to say that I have been using Wikipedia for quite some time and found out that it contains almost everything I need. I really like it.
Is the information there accurate? My answer would be yes. I have read a few articles about Cambodia, my home country. The information there, though some is outdated, is mostly accurate and reliable.
In short, without Wikipedia, we would lose a great database for searching for factual information just about anything.
Is the information there accurate? My answer would be yes. I have read a few articles about Cambodia, my home country. The information there, though some is outdated, is mostly accurate and reliable.
In short, without Wikipedia, we would lose a great database for searching for factual information just about anything.
I think the information on Wikipedia is fairly accurate. I like using it when I don't understand a term or a concept. But I would never use it for an academic paper. No way~ Although it's accurate and even peer-reviewed, it should never be cited in an academic paper. =|
| Quote: |
| urbanbuddha: But I would never use it for an academic paper. No way~ Although it's accurate and even peer-reviewed, it should never be cited in an academic paper. =| |
Could you tell me why we shouldn't use Wikipedia for academic paper?
nothing is absolutely full of junk, Wikipedia is well any way, fault comes from the way it exists.
Wiki is only good as a resource, I wouldn't take it as the Holy Grail.
I think wikipedia is GREAT!!! ofcourse there is a load of junk on it but there is some very useful information on there like yesterday i looked up Joey Jordison from Slipknot (Fastest Metal Drummer In The World). I got alot of good information about him, so in my opinion Wikipedia Rules!
It does have a lot of info and etc but then again one should not consider it to be everything..
most of the articles written there are done by guests and users..and it neednt be right that they are all true..
i dont think each and every page is scrutinized by the Wikipedia staff and all the guests have the right to edit most of the pages..
now that is something bad..they need to scrutinize through all the posts and then lock them up so that there cant be any futher editing to be done by the guests who visit the website..
i kinda started hating wikipedia when this friend of mine speaks total bullshyt and if you try and speak against it - all he says is - Wikipedia says so..!
most of the articles written there are done by guests and users..and it neednt be right that they are all true..
i dont think each and every page is scrutinized by the Wikipedia staff and all the guests have the right to edit most of the pages..
now that is something bad..they need to scrutinize through all the posts and then lock them up so that there cant be any futher editing to be done by the guests who visit the website..
i kinda started hating wikipedia when this friend of mine speaks total bullshyt and if you try and speak against it - all he says is - Wikipedia says so..!
I would NOT reference any article in a report without cross checking.
Sinbad ain't DEAD!
Sinbad ain't DEAD!
the info in wikipedia is good, IF the info provided is true and accurate...
when comes for stuffs like tv or movie info, i usually go it imdb.. some sites are more pro about the content than wikipedia since wiki is so GENERAL..
when comes for stuffs like tv or movie info, i usually go it imdb.. some sites are more pro about the content than wikipedia since wiki is so GENERAL..
I've always found it useful - wikipedia is supposed to cite all of its resources, so you can check if they're there, and says if it hasn't (so if you see something odd and can't find a resource about it, it's easy to tell if you can't trust it).
| goutha wrote: |
| Hi, I'd like to know your opinion on Wikipedia. A lot of people are accusing this encyclopaedia to be full on junk... as there's no efficient control of its content...
Recently, Wikipedia co founder Jimmy Wales has warned students not to refer to Wikipedia…. He said that he gets about 10 e-mails a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has earned them fail grades because they cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. What do you think about that? |
Well personally i love wiki-pedia reason being is because it is pretty accurate and usefull but dont get me wrong there some of it is junk.
I use wikipedia sometimes for my research so i can get more information to develop my website.
also when i am looking for information about history and science, i use wikipedia.
So i hope that wikipedia will continue for a very longtime.
also when i am looking for information about history and science, i use wikipedia.
So i hope that wikipedia will continue for a very longtime.
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
| I use wikipedia sometimes for my research so i can get more information to develop my website.
also when i am looking for information about history and science, i use wikipedia. So i hope that wikipedia will continue for a very longtime. |
Same here mate its a great site
In my opinion I think Wikipedia is probably the best informing site on the web. It gives pretty accurate and easy to understand (most of the time) information. A lot of teachers in my school are hesitent to allow us to gather information from Wikipedia because of the fact that anyone can change the information on it. Other teachers allow it because it is a .org site and most .org sites are accurate. All I have to say is, screw the teachers who don't want me to use wikipedia! It's the best site ever! 
Oh, sorry for my slight bad language there.
Oh, sorry for my slight bad language there.
It is accurate, even though there is vandalism. A good idea is to use the external links and corroborate the information with other sources, or watch it over time.
As soon as there's vandalism, it's fixed very fast by other serious users. =) So you barely even notice it.
I love wikipedia and I use it all the time, especially when I am on forums or AIM and someone mentions something or someone I don't know about.
However, I would never use it as a resource for a paper. I kinda put wikipedia in the same category as 'asking a random stranger about it'. Sure, that person might bet 100% right, but then again, they might only be right 95% of the time, or they might not totally understand part of what they are explaining.
However, I would never use it as a resource for a paper. I kinda put wikipedia in the same category as 'asking a random stranger about it'. Sure, that person might bet 100% right, but then again, they might only be right 95% of the time, or they might not totally understand part of what they are explaining.
i use it for school so i dont care. wikipedia has never failed me they are the best
I love using Wikipedia but sometimes I do think that some facts are inaccurate. My school hates the idea of students using wikipedia because they apparently did a 'test' to see if the information was actually accurate and it apparently wasn't.
I always use wikipedia to have a basic understanding of things. My teacher hates it guts because we lazy people just use wikipedia instead of going to the library, and almost everyone use it for homework in my class (or at least read it before doing research, including me ) god we are horrible students!
) god we are horrible students! Overall, Wikipedia is great for starting research, as it covers a massive amount of topics (throw FIRST Robotics in there; you will get an entry) but if you need to do a research paper, citing Wiki makes you look like an idiot. None of my teachers will accept Wiki-cited pages as 1) there is a remote chance it is not accurate, and 2) it looks like you took the easy way out.
Don't cite Wikipedia. You and I know it is pretty accurate, but prove that to a teacher...
Don't cite Wikipedia. You and I know it is pretty accurate, but prove that to a teacher...
I use Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and find it very useful as a starting point for any research. It generally points me to other sources that I may not have thought of and although I know that it has been accused of being inaccurate I find its info, on the whole, very good.
As for being full of junk – one man’s junk is another man’s treasure.
As for being full of junk – one man’s junk is another man’s treasure.
I believe Wikipedia is accurate enough. But at such a size for the site, and accessibility from everyone, it's impossible not to have flaws, so it's good to use it as reference, but also use your brain/check with other sources for the accuracy of that info.
Also, it would be wise to refer only to articles which have won prizes, or developed articles, rather than Stubs...
As for me, Wikipedia hasn't yet failed me, till now all the info I get from it was correct and may I say, very useful
Also, it would be wise to refer only to articles which have won prizes, or developed articles, rather than Stubs...
As for me, Wikipedia hasn't yet failed me, till now all the info I get from it was correct and may I say, very useful
i use wiki all the time... if i dont know what something is i go have a look on wiki before google..... its alot more useful tbh.
Wicki is a good source of information. But not knowledge.
Wiki seems to work well enough to look up card game rules or find incredible pictures of mud wasps. Other than that, there are far more credible resources out there, including BOOKS. Believe it or not, they are chalked full of great, unalterable information.
Of course, the reason many students are failing their papers is because they do not cross reference their information, and rely only on Wikipedia.org for all of their answers. I wouldn't blame wiki as much as I would blame the students for a lack of consideration when researching, or perhaps even the teachers for not stressing enough the importance of using several sources.
Of course, the reason many students are failing their papers is because they do not cross reference their information, and rely only on Wikipedia.org for all of their answers. I wouldn't blame wiki as much as I would blame the students for a lack of consideration when researching, or perhaps even the teachers for not stressing enough the importance of using several sources.
I usually find that the information on it is accurate. But what I use it for mostly, is an easy way to find information. Most articles on it have the references on the bottom so if I'm trying to research something, instead of searching for sites on google I'll usually just go to the wikipedia page and use the websites listed there.
Hello,
Wikipedia is a pertty good site to find somthing really fast. Generally you can find good informations, but not all the time...
For example I suggest everybody to search for something they know very well on Wikipedia and to see if all the information is real.
I am sure that you will find some mistakes, because this web site is done by ours.
We can all freely change something if we don't like it, but I still think that it's a pretty good idea to make a web site like Wikipedia, because it let peoples to write their knowledge which is pretty good.
Alexander.
Wikipedia is a pertty good site to find somthing really fast. Generally you can find good informations, but not all the time...
For example I suggest everybody to search for something they know very well on Wikipedia and to see if all the information is real.
I am sure that you will find some mistakes, because this web site is done by ours.
We can all freely change something if we don't like it, but I still think that it's a pretty good idea to make a web site like Wikipedia, because it let peoples to write their knowledge which is pretty good.
Alexander.
It's very handy. If you have school task, it's in Wikipedia for sure. Just copy it, modify few words add couple pictures and get a good result by using Wikipedia.It may have some false information but who cares, nobody knows it if Wikipedia doesn't.
Well, my answer to that poll question is "Accurate"
I think that its really hard to generalize Wikipedia as being either Very Accurate or Very Inaccurate because it really all depends on what you look up. Obviously if nothing in an article is cited at all, or if its just a bunch of mindless garbage which is obviously untrue, you'd have to question the validity of the article. But, if it has its sources cited and in reality they are reliable ones, then you can't say they aren't valid. Personally, Wikipedia has never given me completely wrong information, but I have seen articles that I couldn't completely trust because I thought some of the information was questionable.
I think that its really hard to generalize Wikipedia as being either Very Accurate or Very Inaccurate because it really all depends on what you look up. Obviously if nothing in an article is cited at all, or if its just a bunch of mindless garbage which is obviously untrue, you'd have to question the validity of the article. But, if it has its sources cited and in reality they are reliable ones, then you can't say they aren't valid. Personally, Wikipedia has never given me completely wrong information, but I have seen articles that I couldn't completely trust because I thought some of the information was questionable.
I think that while there is a great deal of relatively accurate, unbiased information on Wikipedia, I still know that with some things I can only take it with a grain of salt. Because it's so heavily based on the submissions, tweakings, and such of it's users, there's undoubtedly going to be some inaccurate stuff on there. Additionally, no college professor is going to take a reference from Wikipedia...they'd be more likely to laugh at you. (Though I'm not too sure that it's that or just that they're just upset at the decline in using tangible, book encyclopedias over one on the internet...hehe.) It's a great source, but I can't tell for sure what is really true and what isn't.
Wiki is actually quite a useful resource. I have never quoted anything directly from a wiki page. I have however, looked at their citations to see if the source is one that I should check out. I have had no problems.
I agree though, that wiki should not be quoted directly as the context is user submitted.
I do believe in the concept though
I agree though, that wiki should not be quoted directly as the context is user submitted.
I do believe in the concept though
It's not too bad, but I'm finding there are some idiots out there editing them. I've given up on being an active user there myself. Too many idiots for my liking.
Ahh - Wikipedia. The fount of all nonsense.
If you want entertainment you're in the right place. If you're depending on accurate research material you're a fool if you trust it - or any other site with uncorroborated material on the internet, for that matter.
As LumberJack says - don't quote Wiki. Use the citations and go back to the cited material. If that information is reliable use it.
If you want entertainment you're in the right place. If you're depending on accurate research material you're a fool if you trust it - or any other site with uncorroborated material on the internet, for that matter.
As LumberJack says - don't quote Wiki. Use the citations and go back to the cited material. If that information is reliable use it.
Julk!? Oh no. It is like a bible to me.
I reference it often when I am doing my report though my teacher tells me not to, as the sources are not that accurate. But who cares?
I reference it often when I am doing my report though my teacher tells me not to, as the sources are not that accurate. But who cares?
Well, it’s made by the public so it’s not the most reliable source as it could have wrong stuff, well that’s what I say to my friend when his school essays are just cut’n’pastes of wikipedia XD
i used wikipedia all the time!!
it's soo helpful for classes.
especially history classes
it can't really be used as "credible" info for actual research, but it's really good place to get you started
it's soo helpful for classes.
especially history classes
it can't really be used as "credible" info for actual research, but it's really good place to get you started