FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Your opinion on Wikipedia... Is it full of junk?






How accurate are the information proposed by Wikipedia?
Very accurate
29%
 29%  [ 79 ]
Accurate
62%
 62%  [ 169 ]
Not accurate
7%
 7%  [ 21 ]
Total Votes : 269

goutha
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?
kazikame
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.
Wackybird
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!
test32rota
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.
wolfpack
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. Rolling Eyes
jobzunlimited
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.
rohan2kool
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 Smile
chrisu
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.
eday2010
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 Smile
DriverEntry
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.
UWereTheOne
I think Wikipedia is great. If anyone ever does vandalize, it's normally fixed pretty soon, so it doesn't matter that much.
jongoldsz
It depends, sometimes someone edits an entry, and they aren't supposed to, and you end up with junk. Other times it is accurate.
Liu
Popular sources are generally accurate since most would check over it often.
izcool
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.
Daniel15
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.
crimson_aria
I love Wikipedia. I use it often. But I always check on some other sites as well for references and assurance.
angel_of_death
wikipedia is indeed an awesome site!
i'm a student, and so i wud definitely know
Rico
Only about 49.36% full of garbage. Wink Just kidding, maybe only 5%.
aceflooder
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. Laughing Laughing Laughing Razz
Becky
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 Very Happy
aceflooder
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.
KernEnergie
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.
avk
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!!
xeekkcnook
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..
allanxiao
Some explainations of problems in science are quite accurate. It's the first place to go when I have questions.
7gts-scout
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
goutha
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...


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.
ArmaghBhoy
I Love the site, although unfortunatley a lot of the time the info can be incorrect, well slightly, but it still makes great reading
R2.DETARD
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...
Ducksteina
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...
Tasa
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.
reddishblue
Its very good compared to the junk you find when you google a sirues topic
faker_phil
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.
erlendhg
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
eku53ru
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.
Josso
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.
kazoe
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.
NeoValkyrion
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. <.<
jovo
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. Razz
skygaia
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..
nilsmo
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.
ashen
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.
shamil
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.
LostOverThere
Its Good, But I have to check it with other sources.
biedr0na666
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
Utopia GFR
Wikipedia is certainly one of the best informative websites i have encountered during the last year Razz

It serves best all my kinds of researches and they've got a French version (and many other international languages) hooked up Very Happy

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 Smile

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 *** Cool

Utopia.
ainieas
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.
goutha
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.
Denime
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..
angel_of_death
the rude hand gesture to all those people out there who think wiki might b junk Cool
xkobram
I think, taht in Czech language is Wiki very accurate. I had no problems with it...
jongoldsz
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.
Blu_Spykz
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.
mstreet
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.
xorcist
I think its accurate, I use alot of the information on there in research papers often and I trust Wikipedia.
HalfBloodPrince
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.
jon9314
it is a verry good and usefull tool but all information should be verified with other sources
Nameless
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. Laughing
Jert14
Its really usefull.. its really cool to use it to make like site of information or personal space something like that.. I like it Smile
Vlien
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 Wink
erlendhg
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...
shwetanshu
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
Jayfarer
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.
duckling
Wikipedia is really a great source of information. i've prepared projects using Wikipedia and i get %100 points Very Happy

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.
lepris
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.
account
I think wiki is pretty accurate not all of it is, but most of it.
jeffsneed
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.
pashmina
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.
Donutey
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.
Satori
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!
Jurado
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,
nilsmo
Wikipedia is not full of junk. To reiterate: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm
ItsWesley
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.
Seiji
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.
wietn
Wikipedia isn't full of junk..
But some of the articles are wrong, but thats the problem with that free changing thing... Rolling Eyes
Futile
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.
HoboPelican
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. Wink

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.
rampantinsanity
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.
Hunterseaker
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.....
MYP415
I think they do a pretty good job of keeping it spam free and accurate.
Lord_crash
Personally, I think it is a great but not perfect. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for work or school.
littletomi714
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.
Andrew426
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.
Dwyer17
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
dz9c
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
ywc1818
I just feel that its web is full of junk Twisted Evil , with a lot of unrelated things. I can't see any accurate materials either Exclamation Twisted Evil 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.
Daniel15
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 Wink

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 Very Happy
catscratches
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 ^^
soren121
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?!?! Shocked 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...
datter
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
Soulfire
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.
Davidgr1200
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.
yjwong
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.
Zews
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.
RhysAndrews
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
rnankori
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!
godam64
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 Smile
lolDave
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.
dagurl
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.
cabezonxdg
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.
the-geek
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
mgx_virtual
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.
jds10912
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
achowles
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%.
Billwaa
its accurate, but if you use it for reserch term paper, you are basically screwed.
Daniel15
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 Very Happy
jon9314
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
murray732
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...
SmartIcon
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.
tom69
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.

Wink
varon
Beware of using Wikipedia. I think a lot of the information they offer is accurate, but a lot isn't. Very Happy I remember a classmate who purposely had a Wikipedia account so he could leave misleading information on the page. Very Happy 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. Shocked 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. Wink
sjjGFM
Wiki has too much stuff and some are reliable and some are wrong.........
Wynand
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.
shrinkwrap
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.
j_f_k
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.
divinitywolf
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.
odinstag
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.
llobo1
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.
hack_man_
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:
Wikipedia wrote:
Can 10,000 monkeys write an encyclopedia?
goutha
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:
Wikipedia wrote:
Can 10,000 monkeys write an encyclopedia?


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...
ZealousZ
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
highlordadmin
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.
Kitten Kong
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.
catscratches
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.
PatTheGreat42
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.
Captain Fertile
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.
mantasx
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. Embarassed
Vinas
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. Smile
smarter
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 Very Happy but it also has some incomplete or not-useful items Crying or Very sad . It is up to you to also use your brains, other sources etc.
goutha
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...
melissareich
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.
Zampano
It's accurate enough to cite as a source; if a person were to post spam they wouldn't provide wrong info.
docter O2
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.
Malchior
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. Smile
linangan
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.
funnyerror
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
ysamphy
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.
urbanbuddha
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. =|
ysamphy
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?
bartdou
nothing is absolutely full of junk, Wikipedia is well any way, fault comes from the way it exists.
rheanna
Wiki is only good as a resource, I wouldn't take it as the Holy Grail.
Zenireth
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!
iNs@nE
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..!
standready
I would NOT reference any article in a report without cross checking.

Sinbad ain't DEAD!
molif
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..
Agent ME
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).
Disaster-Pieces
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.
Lord Klorel
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.
Disaster-Pieces
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 Very Happy
Holy
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! Surprised

Oh, sorry for my slight bad language there. Embarassed
HollyK
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.
catscratches
As soon as there's vandalism, it's fixed very fast by other serious users. =) So you barely even notice it.
raine dragon
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.
dz9c
i use it for school so i dont care. wikipedia has never failed me they are the best
Chelissamow
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.
icantthink
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 Wink ) god we are horrible students! Laughing
JBotAlan
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...
Captain Fertile
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.
Seiorai
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 Cool
[FuN]goku
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.
Fake
Wicki is a good source of information. But not knowledge.
a.Bird
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.
Afaceinthematrix
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.
ConquerSockets
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.
MJMX
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. Razz
LittleMissPattycake
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.
m00tmuffin
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.
LumberJack
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 Smile
bigdan
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.
GSIS
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.
exarkun
Julk!? Oh no. It is like a bible to me. Wink
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? Laughing
Zeferman
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
rainynightstarz
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
and great quick refrences!!
alexdude
Wikipedia is okay, because if someone posts something that is not true, most of the time people revert your changes in an instant. I don't know how they do that so quickly.
mullacy
It's good for a light introduction or overview to a subject, but for serious reference it's useless as half the bloody information is wrong. I looked an article on a cs subject for a university class last year, and the entire algorithm was incorrect. I'm sure many people around the world and in my class had looked it up and copied the code that was listed, and as it was a fairly obscure mistake noone would have picked it up.

While the 'many eyes' theory can stop obvious vandalism it just plain can't stop wrong info from being added and passed off as encylopedia-worthy material. The ease of access to the most obscure topics is worrying.
Shewolf
Wikipedia is great, though it stupid to use it as your only source while researching. Of obvious reasons, of course.
woodenbrick
I think wiki is generally fairly reliable and I use it quite a bit to read up on subjects I don't know anything about. As far as I'm concerned, visiting some random website for the same information leaves no guarantee that the information will be accurate either. Obviously if it's something important i'll use multiple sources.
ashok
Yes. When we are researching about something, we shouldn't depend entirely on a single source. There should be cross checking between multiple sources. Because of the stupidity of the people who are using Wikipedia as the only source, the whole wiki is getting blamed. And second thing, Wikipedia allows people to go into more depth of the topic through the references, external links, links within wikipedia, quotations from other articles etc etc... When it's free and gives more content than limited content of a Britannica CD, IMO i won't mind the few inaccuracy glitches in such a huge site.
cvkien
Most of my informations i found for my assignment are from wikipedia. So i guess it is not a junk in that point. BUT for overall, i see too many unrelated or inimportant information also include in it, so in that case, it is junk. And sometimes, wikipedia had less information than i thought because basically it just contain those very general information.
vln004
i love wikipedia. I usually read up on anything that crosses my mind on wikipedia. that could include anything from religion to computer science. But of course, since this is peer to peer knowledge exchange, be wary that there might be some inaccuracies.
zjosie729
I think Wikipedia is awefully useful, so useful that my school banned it from research projects.
mathieu.e
That's very good idea. You can find more than web site. I've found my city on wikipedia and there is just 52 persons!!
guissmo
Wikipedia is a good start-off point for research.

Although we shouldn't stop our research from that.
As the public knows, Wikipedia is open to anyone for editing, so someone might ruin it.

And who ruins boring homework-related articles there anyway?
The most ruin-prone articles are the celebs, etc. - whose info you can easily Google.
darrenpaul
I LOVE wikipedia! Its just so fricken awesome! I've spent upwards of 4 hours on it, just reading articles

Its an incredible piece of work and organisation, well done to all involved!
bri4n5
I love Wikipedia too, every article is updated, it's awesome.
mstreet
I agree that Wikipedia is a great research tool but I don't think it should be the only resource that you use, there are many other resources out there. Remeber there's a section in libraries for reference and they usually have that now all electronically as well.
Excaliber
I like Wikipedia, and think it is a great resource. If you are researching something though, be sure to check other sites/encyclopedias to ensure the information you are getting is accurate.
bloodrider
I think Wikipedia it's a nice resource to gather information.
If it's really accurate, well, maybe in some cases it isn't, but all the information inputed it's reviewed by Wikipedia's staff before it's realized. So I trust on Wikipedia.
Every time I needed something, I found it on Wikipedia and the information was reliable (I confirmed it Razz)
skygaia
I think Wikipedia is the best so far even though there are many errors on the contents. But there is no website that could be replace of wiki. As internet tech and circumstance are getting better, we could take a lot of information on the internet. Sometimes it is very difficult to find out what is more important and accurate. I think Wikipedia is one of the answer of that questinon.
Of course, as wikipedia is getting famous, it has to pay attention to its informations on the website. It's not easy for wiki to do that but need to do that.
The_Gamer294
Wikipedia is usually right all the time. Millions of people go there each day and it just takes one person to update the info. Everyone has edited wikipedia, and we all know that if you change it and it's wrong it usually gets reset in a matter of seconds.
SpellcasterDX
I think it's very accurate. Sure, there are people with no lives that sit on the computer with wikipedia open all day and vandalize every article they can, but usually articles get fixed by the good people in seconds. It's not always fixed that fast, but it gets fixed pretty fast. So I find it pretty reliable.

And I've used it for school myself. My teachers didn't complain, though one teacher did say we can't use it, but I used it for all my other teachers. So yes, I think it's very accurate even with vandalizers around.
peterlo
Wikipedia is really cool. It made Encyclopedias redundant.
Getsuga
I believe that wikipedia is a good source for information, news and even history, heck it even helped during a report when in school. I also believe that since it is a site where various people can edit the information, that it is not always useful because it's open to the public. So my conclusion is that wikipedia is a mix of both, there are pages where it is a useful resource and pages where it's plain junk.
eefh1
I found wikipedia as a good resource whatever you want to find the information. Any term you search in wikipedia will give a good results with enough information including links.
unknownc1c
ok yes, the information is very accurate, but that's not really the point. It's bias, it can't be trusted even if 80% of the time the information is correct. Here's what i'll say, use it for anything other then educational purposes or for school. Only use it if you have a quick question or your wondering what something is. I don't think most school even let you use wiki as a source for essays. I know my school doesn't, and if you try to use it and they find out you get a low grade on the essay.

NEVER USE IT FOR SCHOOL Razz lol bad idea Laughing
secondeye
i hate wikipedia because when ever my teacher ask for the assignment, th majority of all the students write the content from wikipedia and this site decreasing the mental level of a person to think bhy urself. most of the students write excatly what they read and this is not good, We loos eour grades and thus failed in the course, well wikipedia is used for referal purpose that if u can't understand some thing from the lecture or book then go for the google search or wikipedia like Search and took the referal. Well thats what i believe.
ftv_flung
Take Wikipedia with a pinch of salt - use Google too - I tend to use a few sources if I'm looking up or researching something completely new to me.
dayveday
I think Wikipedia is great. I've heard of a study that some people did by taking a number of pages from Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica were compared for some very scientific topics. They found that one of the world's most established and respected encyclopaedia had just as many errors as Wikipedia does.

However, it is only one view - of course! Those students deserved to be failed if they only used one reference (which happened to be wrong). If they'd done their work properly, and read a book or some journals they would have easily found that Wiki had it wrong.
jabapyth
Wikipedia has so many editors, and most of them are at least moderately intelligent, so anything stupid is usually deleted within the hour, if not sooner.
imamm
On my experience, wikipedia is a cool web site. The information are powerfull.
My appreciation to the builder. It's very good idea man....
damn
i think wikipedia is the most good thing that happened to web after google and youtube.
friuser
I tried wikipedia before... It's not the best. Too much of the editing control is taken over by those are have self interests. Particularly the fact of external links and resources. Ever try editing one of the political candidates info? I wouldn't use wikipedia for any serious research. Maybe a starter or general info but the information there is too bias. Also it's a magnet for spammers and linkage spam. I dunno why but it just annoys me with their external links in some articles. Their own guidelines state a limit but its never taken seriously. It's far from a true encyclopedia but its close which is why it's a problem when anyone can edit it.
rlzd
Everytime I've been on wikipedia, everything seemed to have worked out correctly. I think it's a very good site if you need knowledge.
I've used it miiiiillioooons of times when working on schoolprojects and so on.
Even if people can post info themselves, you can still tell when they come from a professional or from someone that doesn't really know what they are doing.
biljap
I think that Wikipedia is good website, there is really a lot of information. Unfortunately it wasn’t of some help for me… Whenever I tried to find something I managed to find only some general information, definitions, complete history of how some word got its’ name but never details I really needed. I prefer to search Google for more than one website specialized for the topic I’m interested in.
ChrisCh
I write articles and check the accuracy of changes (sometimes, when I have time) and it gets pretty easy to tell what is a real change, and what is just someone trying to be annoying. It's great, because if any new information is introduced into an article, it has to be referenced and not original research, or else it's removed! So from a research point of view, it's pretty great, and usually comes with an array of links at the bottom of the page to the sources that helped develop the article.
imagefree
Although the information is open and anyone can change it, yet i think the info is reliable and can be quoted as the source anywhere else.

I, most of the times, rely upon the info contained there. So, no problem, go there and consult fon anything you want.
zichlone
Wikipedia is full of crap any Joe Everybody can come on and act like he knows everything. I.E. I edited the section on bears and added "Godless killing machines" and it stayed there for 3 days. who knows what little third grader added that to his report. It is also a further depredation of our school systems as teachers are starting to accept wrong info off wikipedia
filet
Wikipedia is a good initial resource to further researching for something. Furthermore when I have to research on something, Wikipedia is a place where the info is compact and helps in understanding about certain topic in general.
DSGamer3002
In most cases, Wikipedia is very useful for finding information that most people don't care about. As for finding information that is somewhat popular, that's a different story. Because Wikipedia allows ANYBODY to edit nearly ANY page on their site, someone can just edit a page to make it inform people false information. This has happened several times to me, and it's pretty annoying. I don't always trust Wikipedia, but when doing a project for school or something, it's a pretty good resource.
skygaia
I think wikipedi.com is very good site. I know it's not perfect. but there is no perfect free site on the web. So some of information on wikipedia might be wrong.. But I think it's very small part of it.
I would like to use the website.. but it's not only site when I have searched information on the web. It's one of the source on the internet.
soulery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YesIAmAnIdiot/Hinbuddhijudachristislam


Lol, this made me laugh so hard.
j_f_k
A survery was done recently by nature magazine, I think comparing Wikipeia with britannica and encarta and all 3 were much of a muchness in terms of accuracy with the other 2 generally having better written articles
watersoul
I think wikipedia is brilliant for a brief easily explained explanation of subjects I'm not very sure about.
From wiki I'll then have an idea of what I'm looking into, then search more complicated journals/books/websites for more trusted information.
Wikipedia is great for anything I don't have to reference (general knowledge), but not for university work!
Smile
Zombie
I think most wikis are accurate. But occasionaly I will come across one which is in dire need of editing. But thats the glory of wikis, they are open to public editing. So, once enough experts edit a certain wiki, it will become more and more accurate.
jabapyth
Wikipedia is exellant for getting a general idea about a subject; and then, if you want specifics, go the the "cited sources"!
DX4Life13
No, not at all. I have never really understand why people believe that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy site. Sure, anybody can edit a page, but most of the information I get on there to use for my school homework or projects are good and truthful. So, no. Wikipedia doesn't have too much junk unless you intended to search for a topic about junk. Even then, they still stay factual.
Mr_CEO
I guess I like wikipedia. It is an easy tool to get some information 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.
Donutey
Wikipedia, if you average all of the entries is pretty good. I think that compared to a regular encyclopedia it's much better because the range of information is much wider. Also, it tends to be that wikipedian errors are more those that are obvious, rather than more insidious errors that come from a closed source encyclopedia.
snowboardalliance
Wackybird wrote:
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!


Sorry in advance for not reading all replies but there are way too many pages.

Anyway, when this happens, you can look back a few edits on the history.


I think that wikipedia is fairly accurate because they require you to cite the source, so you could read the wiki page for a summary of something and then look at external links to back it up. Of course in this system there will be a lot of problems, but largely, wikipedia has a good system of moderators and has good information. Of course it can't be used primarily for school, you need to look at other sites to show your sources. Still you can find a lot of the info you are looking for rather quickly.
ForceRun
Overall, I have found the infomation on the site useful and seem to be the only good and full source on some things.
kiranaghor
For very very general stuff its not junk. But when it comes to biographies or certain less known information, its very risky. Any way it is difficull to trust the information given at wikipedia. I had very bad experience with the information provided about John Nash (famous mathematician with 'a beautiful mind')...
ssthanapati
Well actually i kinda find wikipedia kinda handy. Lotta info in there. And it helps me a lot in my job
riv_
I think it depends on what you're looking for. It's more reliable on some subjects than others.
In general, I think it's often a useful starting point when you're looking for very general information, or if you're absolutely clueless on something and need a little bit of background so you can narrow down your search criteria and/or ask some intelligent questions.
That said, it's a pain in the behind because it's ** so slow ** !
k_s_baskar
I think lot of articles in wikipedia is very useful. And I am getting almost relevant articles while googling in wikipedia.

So My Vote is Accur..

Smile
indianinworld
Wikipedia is a great online resource centre. Do you see some valid information on a good topic / person / country / technogy / company / articles / ANY-THING, then wikipedia is a great place to start with.

Ofcourse, there might be factual devaiations. Information can not always be true. Hats-off to all the contributors of information to wikipedia and special thanks to all reviewers of WIKIPEDIA. And Thanks to visitors too Laughing

And All information stated in Wikipedia need-not necessarily be true. There might be facutal errors or actual errors. Just start with Wikipedia. If you are comfortable, believe it. Else there are many other sources. Browse them too to understand and read things.

Happy Browsing wikipedia Very Happy

Keep browising Wiki - and keep smiling Smile
indianinworld
Junk is not really an appropriate word for quoting / criticising the works of Wikipedia. So request you all to refrain from using such terms...

Thanks in Advance...

Browse - Learn - Share - Smile - Smile
Indyan
I extensively use wikipedia and I am a very big fan of wikipedia. What i like about wiki is its vast scope. I also use it for project works etc. But yeah i dont trust it blindly. For eg. I would never put in my assignment something without a valid source from the wiki,
dac_nip
Hooh.. you know the word junk doesn't really suit wikipedia. When you research and try to find information, it is your responsibility to verify that it is the correct information. Wikipedia has been very useful and it gives you an almost accurate introduction of information to things. By the way, those who failed due to referencing wikipedia, its your fault! You're not supposed to cite articles in the net unless its a journal from some known ISI publication journal. Blaming wikipedia for failing is just stupid. you should actually thank them, the service is free and it gives you a bare introduction and summary of things..hayy.. Very Happy
starngao
I love Wikipedia.I have found very good information from this site,It is a easy tool to get some info fast.
alem
wikipedia makes easy to learn about any subject rapidly... and google also loves wikipedia i think because they are at top pages usually.
hiddenicevillage
Yeah, it's pretty accurate. The modetators do a pretty good job.
windrei
i do think wikipedia is very accurate.. up to now, i searched for lots of information there are all are correct... actually how is wikipedia written ?

yahoo knowledge is really full of rubbish i think. It's answered by the people on internet. That means anybody can become the "knowedge provider"... and many people just posted some rubbish and meanlingless questions. It seems there is nobody monitoring it. Compare the two, i think wikipedia is much more useful.
dude_xyx
Yes it has plenty of junk still its someone most useful you can find on net.
Kitten Kong
Wikipedia is great, some people might try and bias articles for their own purpose, but there are thousands of other ppl ready to change things back. Not like a real encyclopaedia where all you have to do is bribe one editor and you can put in whatever you like.

Yes, I'm cynical.
bigdan
windrei wrote:
i do think wikipedia is very accurate.. up to now, i searched for lots of information there are all are correct... actually how is wikipedia written ?

yahoo knowledge is really full of rubbish i think. It's answered by the people on internet. That means anybody can become the "knowedge provider"... and many people just posted some rubbish and meanlingless questions. It seems there is nobody monitoring it. Compare the two, i think wikipedia is much more useful.


But wouldn't Wikipedia and Yahoo! Knowledge be the same if anyone can become a "knowledge provider"? I've seen some absolute drivel at both sites.
liljp617
It's not a formal source or a great source of detailed information. It's just a bunch of general information that helps with gaining good background, basic knowledge....just like any encyclopedia. I do think it's absurd that it's not an acceptable source to teachers just because "IT CAN BE CHANGED BY ANYONE!" That's nice, but the site is highly monitored and the information on there can be compared to a number of other resources to make sure it's accurate. If the excuse for why it shouldn't be used is that anybody can mess with it, then we may as well prohibit the use of the vast majority of the Internet as a source.
Pkshields
I like Wikipedia until I get to somewhere where someone has posted for a deletion for no reason whatsoever. As long as the article is still there, it is good
Thumpercats
I would say that winkipedia is a good resource to get a basic understanding of what you are researching. You cannot take everything to be accurate, so it is not a good source to put into any type of paper, but it can get you started when you have genuinely no clue on what the hell your topic is. It's helped me out more than a few times.
j_f_k
soulery wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YesIAmAnIdiot/Hinbuddhijudachristislam


Lol, this made me laugh so hard.


The mother of all handles there. At first I thought, what the hell is this entry doing still in Wikipedia but I guess technically its correct so its hard to justify losing it.

Just hope Mr YesIAmAnIdiot doesn't hail from the Middle East or Sudan
Patriot Players
Personally, I don't believe anyone should ever use Wikipedia as a sole source. Granted, you should never only ever use one source for anything. Wikipedia is an excellent starting point though. While it may not always have perfectly correct information, the site is generally well managed enough to keep truly ridiculous site content off of it. Also, it contains links to other websites that contain fully accurate information. This helps most people to be able to find other information more easily.

This website does have it's dissadvantages, however. The site's monitors can't keep track of everything, and what they don't catch can sometimes be dissatrous. For example, the most recently covered "Wiki-change" was a certain minor celebrity with a death notice attached to the page. The person was horrified, as were his fans, and Wikipedia is lucky they were not charged for the misinterpretation. Luckily, the site content was changed, and everything is now fine.
thebattler36
Wikipedia is useful if you touch subjects on the TOP layer, if you try and hit a lower layer (eg. less used) you are likely to hit a lot of junk and crap. I agree with the earlier posters on the subject that it is a very useful tool especially with the ability to edit and add your own knowledge of a subject.
Taxi23
I very like wikipedia
iamarun
Obviously there is nothing perfect in this world. Just the same wikipedia may not be the perfect one but is always a stop for every one who want to know about some one or some thing.

Since it is not maintianed and updated by one organization or a team you may no find it very acurate but is very informative and good for every one.

if you find some information is not acurate one day you will find it the perfect information as one of us are going to update it to the right information.

finally i would like to end up saying that the wikipedia is a very good place for information.

I like your post keep up the good work.
Aredon
ehh Wikipedia is good. I find myself enjoying most of the content on the site. To bad most things you'd like to use it for (research papers), they won't let you because it's not an official source. *tear*
futureal123
I hate when teachers and other adults claim it is a non creditable source. The only evidence they have to back it up is that anyone can edit it. Yes anyone can, but the mods and admin are notfied immediatly when somone alters a page and always repair it
RubySlasher
Wikipedia is where I run when I need to find out what something is.
vineeth
Its not fare to call wikipedia junk. I'm a medical post graduate student and i used to refer to it very often but never use it is the only source of information. Its more or less like an information search engine.. I always receive good starting materials there and some good links. Anyway, i don't recommend it is the single source of knowledge as its having lots of errors. Better, school students who cannot make out the good from the junk don't rely on it.
intruder_indeed
I use it a lot, it's a great website and is far more acurate than a lot of people think it is. The only problem I ever had with it was, that my mate was not taking it as evidence in a bet we had on each other lol. But I still proved him wrong with the use of the world wide web, and won the bet. It's a shame that some peeps do not see wickipedia acurate enough. I've always had great respect for it.
MarzEz
wikipedia Pwns!!! as futureal123 said,
Quote:
the mods and admin are notfied immediatly when somone alters a page and always repair it
that's one thing no-one understands. (Well, almost no-one.)
i admit, you can't rely entirely on wikipedia, which is why you use the citation links down the bottom.
wikipedia is the most awesome web page ever!!!!! THE BEST!!!!! Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
secondeye
Wikipedia has been good to me. Granted I don't use it for important research, but more of general pondering.
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.. Well the abd thing about wikipedia is that most of the students just copied from there without using their own brains. U all knew that plagiarizer is not Allowed in every Skiiols, collegs, or university, But Wikipedia gives the matter in to easy and comfortable way that we cat make it more easy to write or assignments.
Gustavus
Wikipedia's wonderful. Smile I've been using some of the information they have on various architectural styles to write a report about Neoclassical buildings.... It was quite helpful, it had a variety of information, pictures, various famous architects in the field....

It hasn't failed me yet, I like wikipedia. Smile I always do an additional google search on the topic though, I don't want to put all my potatoes into on basket
bradford19
I use it for most all of my research papers and assignments, so i hope its not junk! Although, I have sometimes found false information on various articles on their site and wouldn't use anything off of their site without double checking it first.
asim
Hi all,

Wikipedia is like web encyclopedia... has many things can say everything, well what else... its a good website with good features and useful information is all that i can say... there may be some people who would have come through some mistakes on the sites, but you should not forget those entries have been made by user like you... i have never been through any mistakes on the site
Thumpercats
Wikapedia is a great jumping off point to get a general idea of what something is about before embarking into a research paper. I would never reccommend using stuff from wikipedia in a research paper because people do go up there and post random crap because they think it is funny. I know that the gerneral community using Wikipedia try their hardest to keep tthe information legit but that doesnt help if someone change a detail such as a year at the moment that you look at the information. I have used Wikipedia to get a basic idea of topics for research papers, and to form a general outline of what i would like a paper to cover, it just makes my research phase a whole lot easier. Way to go Wikipedia!!!!!!!
hofodomo01
Meh, I trust wikipedia 99.98% percent of the time probably (the other .02% lends to the fact that the article you are currently browsing may have been vandalized at the exact same time).

Eventually, the information on wikipedia reaches a medium of both lay understanding and scientific accuracy.
smspno
Wikipedia is said not to be very reliable and this opinion is understandable. None the less, I find it very useful and I have never encountered any essential inaccuracies yet (apart from spelling or punctuation mistakes and so on). Eventually, I believe Wikipedia is highly convenient way of obtaining information and has got very wide range of topics, which is good.
skygaia
I think Wikepedia is very good site. Well... it's one of the greatest ouputs in INTERNET.
I know every information on Wikipedia is not exactly correct. But most information is correct and very useful. As internet tech developed, we could get lots of information on it but... too many... it's very difficult to find what is right. Even though wiki could not be perfect, but it might be the best guide for people searchgin informating on the internet.
cloudship
Wikipedia is quite a nice site and Encyclopedia for learning many things. I remember once I was looking for definition about Crohbach Alpha value and its difference to the internal consistence of a quesitonnaire study, Wikipedia provides me a detailed information about what it is and why it was developed and how to use it. And plus, it provides some very useful links behind it, so that I can read more information with more specific aim and purposes. Wikipedia is also a major source of information that I've read and learn about real time synthesizing music in my research project. From wiki, I learnt several technical solutions and compared them to my final goal and chose the one best fit my work. Without Wikipedia, my work of information searching would be much harder and more inefficient. I would attribute half my work to learning knowledge from Wiki.
jontyboy
most of the info is good but it is very easy to change a site. You dont even need an account though they do have security because they process your IP address if you change the site and can track you so most of the time its good but on certain occasions it can be wrong.
TurtleShell
Yeah, I'd say it's basically accurate. I wouldn't run around acting like just because I read a wikipedia article that I know everything about a subject, but I tend to believe the information I see on it. those articles I've read that I knew what they were talking about.
d5c4b3
i use wiki a lot
sondosia
Wikipedia needs to be taken in context. It's a wonderful way to satisfy one's curiosity, and to start learning more about something that you plan to delve deeper into. However, I don't think it can possibly be the be-all end-all of reference. There ARE errors.
Elefant
Well considering its done by the public for the public, most of its going to be true, but there probably are cases that if something spreads that is believed to be true, but actually isn't, false accusations can be made.

Its basically like rumur central.. if you want to believe you can, but be warned it isn't always true.

Elefant
lastelement0
I think that Wikipedia is a very good source, and is a shame that many people (mainly professors) feel it is not credible. Like someone said prior, the only argument they have is that anyone can edit the information on the page. While this is true, they have people hired that go through and check the info that was added, therefore that altered page is looked at to make sure it's legitimate information.

but since professors don't seem to let this fact into their heads, the links at the bottom of the page can direct me to the same information that was found on their Wikipedia page. a little longer of a process to access, but still works.
ashish2005
Yeah wikipedia is a very good source of information. It's true that anyone can edit it and the information might now alway be true but most of the time the information is true for me. May be people fix the information quickly. Wikipedia comes into great help when I'm doing my assignments and projects. So I simply love wikipedia.
Karel_vanroye
Cool.
Each time when I'm looking for something serious, I've a look to the wiki!
Guelila
on most occasions, the info I acquire from Wikipedia is accurate and are backed by other trustworthy sources, but a few of the times there seemed to be conflicting information between Wikipedia and other most specific sites...

But overall, I think Wikipedia is a great source of knowlegde Smile
tony
i love wikipedia. i know it is not always accurate but it seems to be getting better. they are really pushing source-citing and using the reflist template. seems like vandalism is not so bad as it used to be. just my own personal observation though - does anyone have any figures? i suppose some real data here would be useful. i am interested to know just how many vandal incidents there are in such a time...
itpsu47
Ducksteina wrote:
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...


same tony, i think Wikipedia is Very accurate
James_Hicks
I don't edit there much but I will fix and link as needed. I an administrator for Uncyclopedia.org so I have to use Wikipedia as a reference to avoid vanity article creations. It's a very good site. I get all my curiosities fulfilled at Wikipedia. But if you want a laugh, see the ladder.
nilsmo
A related question is...

do you think encyclopedias are accurate?

Your answer to that question should be about the same as your answer to this thread's question.
jcvincent75
Wikipedia is useful. No, not just useful. It is very useful. Of course maybe not that very accurate because the information in that site comes from their members' inputs but the information that we can get there are still useful in our research or the likes.

I agree with Ducksteina. Write an article that other people doesn't care about except for you, then wikipedia will delete it in a couple of minutes. One of my workmates did that before and that article that he wrote was deleted in a couple of minutes.

Wikipedia has its own way of checking information that are being added into their articles. So it's a good source of information.

Wikipedia rocks!

Cheers!
Ghost Rider103
For the most part, it is pretty accurate. But some of it's content is definitely wrong, since it just comes from it's members, I think that some of the content can be based on someones opinion, which could be wrong sometimes.

I used it quite a bit in school, even though we were told not to because supposedly it was full of junk, but hey I never really had any problems with it.
Arty
I think Wikipedia is fairly accurate, but so many people use it and edit it, so some information could be biased or unorganized.
scbrazil
It provides common sense knowledge - nothing more. It's not scientific, there is no reliable way to check the origin of the info on there and therefore should not be used for study purposes. It's okay to get a general idea of general topic if you keep an open mind about reliability. It's a good intro into some topics which could then be further researched more accurately.
If someone is stupid and lazy enough to use and quote it for college papers, they deserve a fail grade. There are far more scientific and reliable sites on the web that could be used.
reiika101
I actually find Wikipedia helpful, on articles about media and other stuff beside reports and other educational topics. Before I collect some information from Wikipedia on a certain article, I always double check if the given info is correct. Very Happy
PatTheGreat42
I think Wikipedia is probably pretty good. Plus it's pretty inclusive.
linkmenot
u wanna know the truth...read the page on chicken
Melacos
What it's all about from my point of view, is that when you're using info from sites like Wiki, you simply have to be source-critical all the time. Don't get me wrong, I really like the place, and use it for a lot of study-related stuff. I like the way it can be used to create a general idea of a lot of different issues... Though with this said; if I was researching something more specific - going really into details and stuff - I'd turn to several other sources for comparison...
goutha
Melacos wrote:
What it's all about from my point of view, is that when you're using info from sites like Wiki, you simply have to be source-critical all the time. Don't get me wrong, I really like the place, and use it for a lot of study-related stuff. I like the way it can be used to create a general idea of a lot of different issues... Though with this said; if I was researching something more specific - going really into details and stuff - I'd turn to several other sources for comparison...


Like a journalist, you have to verify the credibility of your sources. Wikipedia will not make an exception.... I'm ok with you.
guitar22891
Its not considered a reliable source because its open source. I don't find a problem with it and haven't come across any errors. It proves to be very useful for the research I do.
mattyj
i would never trust Wikipedia for doing anything research related (School or Work reports, etc)

but i find it interesting to read through the articles
soljarag
i like Wikipedia ... its great for quick information... I use it all the time when I need a fast answer. However I wouldnt use it for school, the information doesnt have that much depth so you can't really use it for research papers...

I also think its like youtube.... you just keep clicking on links and before you know it, its 2:00 am
Battle_Off
The information on Wikipedia and other community websites is generally quite and accurate.

But it only takes one person to add false information to mess the accuracy up,

so i would say that Wikipedia is generally a very good and reliable source of information, yet it has the potential to be miss-used which could lead to false information.
Battle_Off
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 think someone should tell these kids to use a book and not plagiarize.
Rajiev
I love the Wikipedia.

One could easily get addicted to the information overflow in it since, all the articles have links to other interesting articles and so on. So You can go on and on reading the stuff in it for hours, days or even months (not in a stretch Smile )

I found my self a bit addicted to Wikipedia when i started to read some stuff about weapons and aircrafts.. Smile I started with SWAT article and then moved on to various combat rifles then to a other special military teams and squads.... and finally ended up with stealth bombers Surprised

What i love in Wikipedia is the linking of words to their full article. Hence, If one don;t know the word/ phrase, just click it and read it. As one user said, try that on a Encyclopedia book set :p or even in a not well linked online Encyclopedia..

The power of Wikipedia lies on the millions of users editing it and it's free nature. And it's one of it's major cons too Sad Some a**ho**s like to use every good thing to make their twisted F***ing needs.

SO the bottom line is, If you are doing your Doctoral degree or research, Wikipedia wont be the ideal place to refer. As a matter of fact, most online materials shouldn't be used in "life critical" events. other than that, it is a good place to surf through the giant information sea and have a sip of...

and ya, It's the next best thing to google. Wikipedia rox Cool
RosenCruz
mostly accurate and very useful ....!
kilotun
I find wikipedia very useful has almost everything. i never had a problem with it being inaccurate but im sure some stuff might be wrong. But most likely the dumb teachers is wrong so they say you are when it's true.
Arty
Well I mostly only trust sources that are cited. Smile
RosenCruz
there are millions of useful articles there..absolutely not junk !
Kae_Azule
Wikipedia helps me out alot each day. Though not as much as my friend, she looks up EVERYTHING on Wiki. Though the accuracy is great on info.
goutha
According to College on the record's website, 73.4 percent of all Wikipedia edits are made by roughly 1,400 people...

The independance and credibility of Wikipedia is questioned...

If you are interested, read this short article : http://www.collegeotr.com/college_otr/734_percent_of_all_wikipedia_edits_are_made_by_roughly_1400_people_17499
yuxan
we should know wiki is not a serious platform, the wike is more like a forum ,eveyone can speak out your opinion about any question which just like Baidu Know in China.
deanhills
Wiki may be a good starting point. If nothing better is available. If I do searches I always use a search engine, and if wikipedia comes up I have a quick look, but I also check out the other search links. Generally wikipedia can be a good introduction, and depending on the topic, sometimes wikipedia can be really good, and what I like about it is that it usually has some references, and further links at the bottom of the Wiki page about the subject, which I can explore.
BobCheung
nilsmo wrote:
A related question is...

do you think encyclopedias are accurate?

Your answer to that question should be about the same as your answer to this thread's question.


cannot agree more,
most of the entry are full of ads
andredesignz
Very accurate Very Happy
joostvane
It is free editable, so thats a little bit worrying. But in my experiences, it has been accurate to even very accurate on the subjects I used it.

The general subjects are quite accurate, but if you go into further detail some of them get off a bit.
pashmina
Wikipedia is a wealth of information. I think wikipedia is better than any other encylopedia around like the brittanica and the encarta of microsoft.
One thing I like about wikipedia is that, it is always updated and they are other contents besides the usual articles.
gandalfthegrey
I am not so much worried about any potential inaccuracy.

What upsets me is how those nerdy wikipedia adminstrators delete perfectly good articles that clearly meet the notable standards. Just because they have never heard of a certain word, object, musician, television show, concept, organization, software, etc., doesn't give them the right to delete the article!!!
Nick2008
I rarely see any vandalism, moderators and good users always edit the article to keep it up to date.

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

I find it accurate, I rarely saw anything questionable in wikipedia's content. Wikipedia is a like a collection of different articles all put into one article. Since most information is cited, it's very useful and you can also check the citations' reliability.
evilgeniuself
Unfortunately, despite the common misconception that mods and "good users" keep wikipedia accurate, the fact remains that most of the sources of information are fan based opinions (if referring to a movie), student information based off of common rumors about the topics. There is no professional basis, and despite the thousands of users "making it accurate", very few articles are altered for this reason. In fact, most linked sources give little to no information on their site about the topic as well, and are usually personal sites made by people with no basis themselves. I regret to say that, while trying my best to keep things accurate, I have placed such information throughout Wikipedia merely to make a piece of information seem correct when it was not.

nilsmo wrote:
A related question is...

do you think encyclopedias are accurate?

Your answer to that question should be about the same as your answer to this thread's question.

Yes, Encyclopedias are accurate, in the sense that they are up to their date, since they have professionals (with degrees in their area) which write their articles (excluding encyclopedia Britannica). Wikipedia, while having a large base of editors, is not accurate, since an educated editor which disagrees on a topic with an uneducated editor may have much of his information tampered with and turned inaccurate, while still sounding professional. This means, unless the educated editor is willing to take the time to keep it accurate every second of the day (which they usually aren't), the information will be wrong in a sense.
guissmo
They actually have a lot of measures to controlling the "trash" that comes in. Smile
deanhills
True, all of it is not completely accurate, but given that the service is free, I am happy to have it even with the not so accurate parts in it. I also find that some of the information is dated. Last week when I checked up on the demographics of India and Pakistan for example, Pakistan's was more up to date, and worked on numbers for religious groupings. India's was dated, and worked on percentages for religious groupings. So Wikipedia standards differ for provision of information for demographics from one country to another.
Xrave
NO ONE INSULTS THE ALMIGHTY WIKIPEDIA!

seriously, don't.

It's the database of the world!

ALL HAIL WIKIPEDIA!!!


(soryr, just needs to get that off my system)
Vladalf
The founder of Wikipedia wanted to make something so every human beeing has free acces to information. I think he succeded. Though some of the wikipedia mods do high discriminations to some pages, I ceirtanly use Wikipedia's information daily.
Vladalf
Fatality
I probably use Wikipedia as a creditable source of information more then I should. I do trust a lot of the info on there, but I know a few people who post false truths on the internet just to see if people believe it. I'm not sure how much of that is going on in Wikipedia, but I think with the amount of people that check and contribute to Wikipedia this false information gets corrected. I know not all of it is completely true, however I believe the majority of the info is valid.
slashnburn99
Isnt that the point of Wikipedia if the information is wrong you change it?
goutha
slashnburn99 wrote:
Isnt that the point of Wikipedia if the information is wrong you change it?


Yes you can.
mwsupra
I believe its good as a starting point but info should probably be verified just in case.
the-guide
Although it's not 100% accurate but it has a lot more useful info than many and many sites around the Internet. However, we should use it carefully and circumspectly.
ProfessorY91
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 am another student, telling you that most of what you've just stated is utter bullshit. Wikipedia is structured in such a way that the average good student or user should be able to verify credibility of any given statement in any article through citations. As my law professor stated, "the fear of having full access to insert logically sound, yet inaccurate statements into any given article by any person is where the condemnation of wikipedia stems from". However, their strict citation requirements, as well as well used references make nearly 89% of all articles (mainstream included) completely accurate from certain points of view. The fact that a "study" can point out glaring inaccuracies in certain articles means absolutely nothing to me, because they have to base their information on yet OTHER sources, some of which are inaccurate in and of themselves. Furthermore, your "study" hasn't been named, and I'm willing to believe it wasn't very well conducted. Also, you base your statement on the analysis of a SINGLE article, which you do not name - yet plainly claim to have found inaccuracies in. Therefore, I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about, and have obviously never thought of checking the in-text citations as well as the references in any article to verify its credibility. These standards are the exact SAME that are used in college classrooms worldwide, in scientific as well as research oriented publications; and they are not questioned in this manner.

My conclusion is that you're an idiot, and that the idea that you can even use wikipedia as your "sole research tool" doesn't exist in the first place due to the innumerable reference links that fill the bottom pages of any article. So for god's sake, go confront your professor, back up your research, and defend it to the death. You have nothing to be sorry for.[/quote]
timefree
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.
haseeb_siddiq
i think informatin on wikipedia is very accurate
i can find everything there
timothymartin
It contains a more current maybe trendy definition that is constantly being updated so accuracy is not the key rather a consensus of opinion and that can work or at least it seems to work for most people.
iyepes
I also warn my students not to rely completely about wikipedia content, I suggest they should compare it with other sources, because general content is good, but it has often mistakes.

I've found many usefull information at wikipedia, but I really think one be critic about the quality of information at internet, no matter where it comes from.
lightwate
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.

What do you think about that?


Yes, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be cited for researches. That's because anyone can edit any article in Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is junk.
Gitesh
I recently had a very bad experience with wikipedia., I run a facebook page with 2,30,000 users, and i recently posted birthday wishes to anti corruption crusader (Anna Hazare-India) and linked to the wikipedia article so that members can read more about the personality and get motivated, but when i returned after few hours i saw lots of people abusing Admin(me) for wishing on wrong date., The fact was that i had wished on right date but the wikipedia article i linked to showed different and wrong date.
I have decide henceforth to just use it as refrence but not belive in the facts completely. Sad
cybersa
Wikipedia helped me in many ways.
So.My vote for Very accurate.
Sw4k1ll4r
Wikipedia is great, its just that some people ruin it for the rest.
Related topics
Still Using Internet Explorer?? Why? It's just... stupid
Court shuts down German wikipedia site
I'm banned ! why?
Biblical "scientification"
Are You a DOWNLOAD JUNKY
PS3 Fails
Got lot of junk mails on my hosted addresss
The Middle East Conflict
To Kill an American
Wikipedia may shut it's doors
Internet now 40x slower
How about swine flu in your country?
Moon Junk Seen from Earth?
what free virus software to get.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Webmaster and Internet -> Websites

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.