Wikipedia is not a true Encylopedia....it is open to editing by any registered user....correctly or not. I still see so many people quotion Wikipedia as a source of information.
Granted, many of the things listed there are historically accurate, but since even those facts are open to editing I'm just curious how many actually believe this source of online information could be truly accurate?
It is accurate if you state your sources.
All you do is uses many sources , take good info , and combine it into one.
Vandalism negates the fact that it should be considered a encyclopedia =(.
The fact that people look towards wikipedia is simply because it is a quick source of information for most.
Personally, when I want to look up any name or event, I get all the info I want. Its not as if I am going to publish this info in a research paper.. It would be simply for personal use and to improve my knowledge..
Unlike brittanica which needs registration, subscription which I am not ready to waste my time with for something so simple.
Also, I would trust most of those who edit the articles. Any vandalism is corrected almost immediately..
I would go with Wikipedia any day
^ As would I, it is very accurate as it is required that you state your sources or your edit gets removed. It is also accurate as, what is usually the case, only people who know a lot about a particular subject, are ever daring enough to edit an article in confidence. If you know nothing about a subject, you wouldn't go editing it's page! So it remains accurate as only the experts have enough understanding to write it...
Well, there's been a study at how accurate wikipedia tends to be. To quote an article from cnet:
| Quote: |
| Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature. |
Here are some links as well to back up the claim:
http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm
I believe wikipedia has made editing the articles a little bit more difficult after this scandal occured. Where a user posed as a professor of religion at a private university.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/06/wwiki106.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6423659.stm
Knowing that that, I would still probably use wikipedia as a source of information but take it with a grain of salt. Repeat.. http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-51772.html 
Wikipedia is accurate. The number of legit users on it far outnumber the pranksters, and it being extremely quick-and-easy to use makes it my primary source of random information. For instance, I just manually type the URL out instead of even bothering to go to the main page - it only takes a second or two. I have access to World Book Online, but I prefer Wikipedia anyway. It's a good place to start.
I think that Wikipedia is a wonderful example of people power, competing with Encarta and Brittanica, and not all people can afford those, so its a big help to them.
Also, its really not very inaccurate, and it attracts brilliant minds that would never be invited to Brittanica, and best of all, for free.
A true example of community spirit if you ask me.
Reddish
| reddishblue wrote: |
I think that Wikipedia is a wonderful example of people power, competing with Encarta and Brittanica, and not all people can afford those, so its a big help to them.
Also, its really not very inaccurate, and it attracts brilliant minds that would never be invited to Brittanica, and best of all, for free.
A true example of community spirit if you ask me.
Reddish |
Way cute avatar 
Me. I am a fan of wiki. Love wiki more than the old book
Wakaka 
Although it's true that anyone can edit information in Wikipedia (at least from what I've heard), I would assume that there are many more people who are eager to post correct information than those who have no clue what they're talking about, or those who just want to ruin a good thing. Information is being changed on Wikipedia all the time, so of course there must be some inaccuracy, but with that being said, there are a ton of internet sources that are much more inaccurate than Wikipedia can or will ever be. There is barely anything said on the internet that can simply be taken and accepted as fact without doing more research, but I think that Wikipedia is a good start to getting some accurate information up on the web.
Actually most vandalism doesn't last long. I tried to put false information in just 1 article (Crazy Frog) saying that he gave some guy bird flew. It was deleted by the next day.
| LostOverThere wrote: |
| Actually most vandalism doesn't last long. I tried to put false information in just 1 article (Crazy Frog) saying that he gave some guy bird flew. It was deleted by the next day. |
Vandal 
Also, we have a member who is a major contributer to Wikipedia, his username is TonytheTiger, I would very much like to see his opinion on this, if any of you can contact him somehow, please inform him of this topic, I am sure he has much to say. Also, he has his own personal award on Wikipedia, a tiger.
ReddishAlso, all the important articles, can not be edited right away by new members, and when they are edited, admins are informed and they come check out the information. so its hard to change something on an important source of information.
It's a fun place to learn something odd now and then, or maybe for a quick reference to clarify and argument amongst friends, but its by no means a legitimate cite able source.
Just try to cite in college.... kicked in the face 
Very true Hogwarts...I should have searched before posting. 
Please refer to http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-51772.html
-locked-
