NationStates Jolt Archive

So in your opinion, how reliable is Wikipedia. Especially after the recent scandal.

In some instances, Wikipedia can be quite reliable. For example, the Bonsai Kitten hoax. Believe it or not, some people in my apartment complex still believe Bonsai Kitten is real... o.O It's doing nothing genuinely cruel -- it's just pissing off a cat long enough to take a picture.

Wikipedia is perfectly fine to use, just make sure you get confirmation from other sources that you believe are reputable if you really need to know something for sure. Usually the bibliography on the bottom of a wiki article is an excellent starting point for that.

Generally reliable for the basics, check somewhere else anything you're not sure about, just don't use it as a true academic reference.

Like any encyclopeadia, it's reference, not the be all and end all that some make it out to be.

So in your opinion, how reliable is Wikipedia.

on non-controversial topics approximately as good as any other encyclopedia, with the significant advantage that errors can actually be corrected. it also covers vastly more topics (and often to a much greater depth) than equivalent encyclopedias do.

basically, good for starting out and using in basic internet arguments but unacceptable as a source in legitimate scholarly work. same as any encyclopedia.

Most of my teachers though it was reliable until the big scandal. Now they tell us to use it as a 'springboard' to get some idea about what you're talking about, instead of an actual source

I think Wikipedia is mostly reliable, except on really important issues. You want to learn about the Spanish-American war? Swell. Want to learn about Torture in Guantanamo? Not fine.

So in your opinion, how reliable is Wikipedia. Especially after the recent scandal.

May I ask what the recent scandal was?

Completely Unreliable.

Ok, maybe that's a bit harsh, but if you think you can use Wiki to help you on your school report, the teacher's gonna laugh in your face while he marks it up with a big fat F. Never use it as a source, only as a springboard to more reliable information.

Completely Unreliable.

Ok, maybe that's a bit harsh, but if you think you can use Wiki to help you on your school report, the teacher's gonna laugh in your face while he marks it up with a big fat F. Never use it as a source, only as a springboard to more reliable information.
Your right about that though, teachers generally dislike wiki, especially if it turns up on footnoted or on an essay bibliography. But I find if the subject your doing isn't as in depth and you need straight quick information, wiki isn't as bad as you think, i find it somewhat reliable. For instance, I think i did a short history report on the IRA which most of my dating (eg irish civil war etc) was referenced from wiki.

May I ask what the recent scandal was?

i would also like to know.....

Just check the sources and you should be ok. If there are no sources, try to find something that backs it up. The most commonly vandalized things are biographies, current events, and controversial subjects. Beyond that, the accuracy is pretty high.

There was an entry about a mundane topic that had one paragraph about endangered salmon. Two people got into a war, changing the language to suit thier political objectives. I vote pretty unreliable, but a good springboard.

I would never trust it for a research paper or anything important.

it is completely reliable for me. my profs take all my stuff and like it. all my stuff comes from wiki

So in your opinion, how reliable is Wikipedia. Especially after the recent scandal.

Its a good guide for dates and sciences for we who lack edukayshun. Anything political will be contested, regardless of its actual quality. Not just my opinion either.

"The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Too many people call wiki unreliable because it gets one or two things wrong every once and a while. On the whole, though, errors are usually corrected quickly. The fact is, you can spend two hours looking for something on the net or two minutes on Wiki. It's as accurate a source there is on the Net. The only way to get more information is to go to the library or buy a book.

wikipedia is easily as reliable as the guy you would use as your "phone a friend" on who-wants-to-be-a-millionaire

if you would use HIM as a source on your school paper, you can use wiki.

I'd say, much as others have, that it is of a pretty high standard across the board. It takes peer-review to the next level.

The trouble arises where the expanded definition of 'peer' (anyone, absolutely anyone, not just those recognised as experts in the respective fields) brings about error or sabotage, both of which lead to inaccuracy and even open conflict.

Error, when someone who thinks they know what they're talking about is wrong.

Sabotage, when someone deliberately adds wrong information.

When the wrong/sabotagical (if that latter is a word) party is an individual, the community can generally compensate. When there's whole sides to the argument, the best that can happen is that the battleground in question can be 'locked' with the two POVs described.


But before either interference (solo or group) is properly resolve, someone could be hooked by the wrong info, so don't make any life-changing decisions based on it. Sill, I would say that it beats the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button on Google, because the latter (even if it isn't just pron masquerading as your interest through MetaTags/hidden text) isn't likely to have had any peer-review at all.

Somewhat Reliable

Too many people call wiki unreliable because it gets one or two things wrong every once and a while. On the whole, though, errors are usually corrected quickly.
True. One can also check the same information from other wiki sites (other languages). If the information is the same on both (or several) sites I tend to believe it.

It's usually reliable enough to get a general opinion on a matter and find new ways to gather more information about it. Even so, some articles (AES, for example) are quite good.

I use Wiki on the net. Not on papers.
That's my faith in Wiki.

Generally reliable for the basics, check somewhere else anything you're not sure about, just don't use it as a true academic reference.

Like any encyclopeadia, it's reference, not the be all and end all that some make it out to be.

Correct - Unfortunately, it's used as political fodder. "Nothing that is free could ever be good! Wikipedia sucks!"

It's an easy source for certain topics, and a good tool to brush up on basic knowledge. I wouldn't use it as an academic source, but it's okay for general, non-politically charged reading. Just today I was reading articles related to astronomy, a casual interest of mine. I trust its reliability there. I've also contributed on several music related topics and find that articles like that don't have major problems - and if I do happen across one, it's easily fixed.

(Face it - even academic literature gets the facts wrong to push a certain viewpoint in politically charged topics. This isn't unique to wikipedia.)

So in your opinion, how reliable is Wikipedia. Especially after the recent scandal.
what scandal?

what scandal?
Someone had put false information on the wikipedia page of John Seigenthaler Sr., who discovered it and went all over the media to tell about it. The media then responded with harsh criticism of wikipedia, and Jimmy Wales, the founder, started a few extra cautionary measures.

Here's the wikipedia page on the controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy

For general knowledge purposes, wiki is reasonable, because one is likely to find what is considered "common" knowledge on things. That does not mean it is accurate or true, but it would be a set of information that most people could relate to.

While I don't think that wiki could be used as a reliable source for research, I would consider using the bibliography included in many articles as a good starting point.