NationStates Jolt Archive

How reliable is Wikipedia, i've heard a lot of people complain about this site as being a very unreliable source for various reasons, including the fact that anyone can edit them and add bias or mistakes into it willingly or unwillingly.

So what do you think?

Poll coming!

If wikipedia were manifested as a person, I would trust it with my life (unless someone vandalized the articles...)

According to Nature, wikipedia is about as reliable as the encyclopedia Brittanica.

Personally I believe it is a good starting point to find more information about a suject; but not suited to be a definitive source.
If people would be required to register with their reallife identities and credentials as well as to sign their entries the reliability would be much greater IMO.

I wouldnt use it as a definitive source, but I do use it in arguments, and I would use it in reports, but only if the facts are corroberated elsewhere.

It's as reliable as any other single source.

About reliable enough for NS and other interweb things.

I use Wikipedia as a starting point only, and I never use it for any kind of formal research.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikibob6ts.jpg

It's generally a good source of information, but if you use it for any kind of important work, the information should be double checked using another source.

It's as reliable as any other single source.

So a wikipedia article about say the nomadic tribes hut jiminy jims hut is as reliable as from a source made by a historian doing intense research into it.

So a wikipedia article about say the nomadic tribes hut jiminy jims hut is as reliable as from a source made by a historian doing intense research into it.
It is if the historian wrote the article.

its on t3h intraweb and therefore true.

I can certify that the articles I've written are all accurate.

Wikipedia is trustworthy. It's not the best source in the world, but it's continually getting better.

So a wikipedia article about say the nomadic tribes hut jiminy jims hut is as reliable as from a source made by a historian doing intense research into it.

The historian would have no doubt used other sources to research, and would cite those. Not exactly a single source.

According to Nature, wikipedia is about as reliable as the encyclopedia Brittanica.

Personally I believe it is a good starting point to find more information about a suject; but not suited to be a definitive source.
If people would be required to register with their reallife identities and credentials as well as to sign their entries the reliability would be much greater IMO.

A bit more reliable, actually.

Wikipedia came first, and the rest of the world is edited to match it.

So a wikipedia article about say the nomadic tribes hut jiminy jims hut is as reliable as from a source made by a historian doing intense research into it.

Yeah, probably. People seem to forget that Wikipedia has sources. If an article doesn't, you're notified of that at the top.

I can certify that the articles I've written are all accurate.


There you go, I told you.

Wikipedia came first, and the rest of the world is edited to match it.
"In the beginning there was Wikipedia....."

It is very reliable. I use it all the time. Only controversial things and current events are really vandalized, and they are reverted quite fast.

I used Wikipedia before to get an idea for an essay and when I got my work back, my professor gave me an F and told me that my "Entire essay severly contradicts the thesis statement. Never use Wikipedia again!":eek:

In overall, it's as reliable as any encyclopedia. For scientific topics I use it for superficial research and to guide me in finding more specific and detailed information.

I used Wikipedia before to get an idea for an essay and when I got my work back, my professor gave me an F and told me that my "Entire essay severly contradicts the thesis statement. Never use Wikipedia again!":eek:

So, in essence...You're a bad essay writer?

There you go, I told you.

I cite my sources. It serves both to add credibility to the article and also to suggest further reading for interested parties. Some editors don't cite. Their edits are generally reverted.

The public nature of wikipedia means that it contains much that is apocryphal, if not wildly inaccurate.

But the size of wikipedia means that the inaccuracies are actually a tiny portion of the total.

Sure, there's some bias. I make a point of trying to remove that, myself.

"In the beginning there was Wikipedia....."

I can see the beginnings of the Bible of Wiki here.

I can see the beginnings of the Bible of Wiki here.

Don't go claiming that Jimbo Wales is a prophet. We all know what happened the last time someone did that.

(Note: It involved a few fishes, a lot of wine and a giant spoon.)

The Bible's already a physical wiki.

The Bible's already a physical wiki.

Pff. Wiki knows what Pi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi) is.

The Bible's already a physical wiki.

True... Anyone can edit. How many Abrahamic faiths do we have now?

Pff. Wiki knows what Pi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi) is.
More importantly it knows what pie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie) is.

I am surprised that so very little people found it non reliable. I.e 0.

The site, wikipedia is generally very reliable, I mean we must remember whilst it is open source, the sort of people who visit it - in the most part - arent dickheads who want to mess the site up and its content. Also it is written by the people for the people, therefore it must be relatively reliable, and even if not completely true, there will be elements of truth within it. Whilst I would if I was doing anything major use multiple sources to get my information, wikipedia is a great place to start.

Using wikipedia is about as reliable as polling random people who have an interest in the subject. They're likely to have a fair idea of what they're talking about, and they're probably not going to be random idiots screwing information up for the heck of it. But they're still just random people and you don't really know how reliable or well-informed they are.

I usually use the Wiki entries as a basis for research. I use the links from the articles to explore subjects. Of course, I also write for the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytauxzoonosis), so I might be a little biased :X.

Using wikipedia is about as reliable as polling random people who have an interest in the subject. They're likely to have a fair idea of what they're talking about, and they're probably not going to be random idiots screwing information up for the heck of it. But they're still just random people and you don't really know how reliable or well-informed they are.

That goes for any source. Whenever you cite a source, you have to accept that the person who wrote it knows what they're talking about. Wikipedia is no different.

More importantly it knows what pie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie) is.
Mmmmmm.... circular...

I used Wikipedia before to get an idea for an essay and when I got my work back, my professor gave me an F and told me that my "Entire essay severly contradicts the thesis statement. Never use Wikipedia again!":eek:
Shouldn't copy and paste...

Wikipedia is exactly as trustworthy as any other source of information. Which is why information in Wikipedia should be compared to and verified against other sources of information on the given topic. Books and articles written by "experts" in a non-open way should be subject to exactly the same skepticism and verification.

(edit: and unfortunately, the poll lacks the correct option so I cannot answer it. The correct option would be something along the line of: "anyone who relies on only a single source of information is a fool" or "all sources are suspect until checked and verified, whether written by Mr. Ph.D. or my next door neighbor" etc.)

I think it's fantastic.

Need to know the basics of Justinians Corpus Juris Civilis? Ask Wiki.

Need to know the events of the English de Montfort Parliament in 1265? Ask Wiki.

As long as it's just out of your own interest. Or just as the basic reading on a subject for an essay. If it's for anything important use it as no more than getting the basics, then use a recommended or respected academic work.

But it's the same with any encyclopaedia. Anybody who does more than that with an encyclopaedia of any kind is fooling themselves.

Treat it as an encyclopaedia and you'll be fine. For anything more, use an authoratitive work on the subject.

I want to complain about the order of the choices. Wikipedia is reliable enough for light research that your History teacher won't be reading too thoroughly, but it is far more than reliable enough for governmental research. It's the only conceivable place where Bush could get his idea that there's no global warming going on (besides the Flat Earth Society, perhaps).

I WORSHIP wiki! I make sure to take a day out of every week to go on Wiki.
"And there was info. and Wiki said it was good..."
- Wikibiblia - Genesisus 1:4

Wiki is teh suck.

I can understand it being inadmissible for research in university, since there are so many peer-reviewed journals easily availiable. Still, I think it is a super site, and I use it all the time when I am wondering about something. I think it generally balances out the biases because it is open to editing. Especially given that one can check the previous edits to an article, and even discuss them, I would say it is a good source. As someone already mentions, even the scientific community admits that it get things right most of the time.

It is good for light research ... good for a starting point and absolutly amazing with what they have to work with.

Also noticed articles about technology tend to be even more acurate then the average

Good for serious debate. I wouldn't use it for life changing purposes.

The wikipedia is like any encyclopedia: a good introduction to a subject you don't know well, not a font of deep knowledge.

It's always a good idea on wiki to check the discussion and history. A document that hasn't gotten much attention is always a little suspect, and the history and discussion is usually a good place to look for signs of vandalism.

Wiki is a good example of what a community of free people can do. I feel a little pride in my species when I think of it.

Wiki is teh suck.

Of course, if I see a wiki article that looks like this, I look somewhere else!

I used Wikipedia before to get an idea for an essay and when I got my work back, my professor gave me an F and told me that my "Entire essay severly contradicts the thesis statement. Never use Wikipedia again!":eek:

It sounds more like your reasoning was seriously muddled, and you did a lot more cut and paste than you should have. Also never assume a wikipedia article is trying to prove your thesis. The problem, Horatio, is not in the wikipedia, it is in you...

How reliable is Wikipedia, i've heard a lot of people complain about this site as being a very unreliable source for various reasons, including the fact that anyone can edit them and add bias or mistakes into it willingly or unwillingly.

So what do you think?

Poll coming!

I'm sure this has already been said, but an independent study had found it as reliable (or rather, unreliable) as the Encyclopedia Britannica. The number of errors they both had notwithstanding, I’d still say it’s good enough for light research: it’s good enough to give you a topical to in-depth view of a seemingly infinite number of topics that you wouldn’t (as readily) find anywhere else.

As for worries of vandalism, it's fairly easy for a person to detect, even someone unfamiliar with a topic.

Considering how its put together, its quite reliable. It is not well edited though, so its pot luck on how well an article is written.

I refer you first to Matthew White:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm

And henceforth to Wikitruth:

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page

Personally, I'll only use Wikipedia as a springboard when I'm researching something historical, but as a source when I'm looking for my Linguistic materials.

Oh yes - how do you do that thing where a link is contained in a word? It's rather natty.

(edit: and unfortunately, the poll lacks the correct option so I cannot answer it. The correct option would be something along the line of: "anyone who relies on only a single source of information is a fool" or "all sources are suspect until checked and verified, whether written by Mr. Ph.D. or my next door neighbor" etc.)

That is known as Myrth or Thyrm.

Wow, I'm shocked that the the highest category is the one for light research. Wikipedia only reiterates what is known as common knowledge. And the use of encyclopedias of any type for research usually ends after gradeschool.

What kind of 'light research' is everyone doing that they find wikipedia sufficient?

I only use it in daily life to point out, like I wrote, what is considered common knowledge. Its good for "look, see." But thats about it.

Generally pretty reliable. If something is objectionable, it's usually already mentioned on the talk page.

I've created a couple of articles myself, mostly about music or aviation.

Wow, I'm shocked that the the highest category is the one for light research. Wikipedia only reiterates what is known as common knowledge. And the use of encyclopedias of any type for research usually ends after gradeschool.

What kind of 'light research' is everyone doing that they find wikipedia sufficient?

I only use it in daily life to point out, like I wrote, what is considered common knowledge. Its good for "look, see." But thats about it.

I've used it before when a person comes up in a text i'm reading for my history or politics classes that i'm unfamiliar with - not enough to footnote or anything, just to get an idea on who they are and what role they play/played. It was especially useful in a World War Two subject where names of minor Nazi's kept coming up. Sometimes the references that are linked in Wikipedia are worth investigating as a follow-up. Hence "light research".

According to Nature, wikipedia is about as reliable as the encyclopedia Brittanica.

Personally I believe it is a good starting point to find more information about a suject; but not suited to be a definitive source.
If people would be required to register with their reallife identities and credentials as well as to sign their entries the reliability would be much greater IMO.

Correct...


Nature': Wikipedia is accurate
By Dan Goodin, Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO — Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. (Related items: A false Wikipedia 'biography' | It's online, but is it true?)

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found — including misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from each source, the journal reported.

"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Wikipedia in 2001.

Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.

The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.

Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group also is working on ways to make its review process easier to use by people who have less familiarity with computers and the Internet.

Encyclopedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the findings because they haven't seen the data. But spokesman Tom Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're conducted correctly, are valuable "because they tell us things you wouldn't know otherwise."

While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not covered in Britannica.

Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered, Panelas said.

Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone — amateur or professional, expert or novice — to submit and edit entries.

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.


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm