NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think wikipedia is a valid source? I don't as it is vandalized a lot and is so simplified due to limits that it leaves out a lot of information.

Shouldn't without further validation.

I wouldn't use it as a primary source, but it's quite accurate.

Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but except for basic things ( "what was that cartoon about again ?") not suited to be an end point.

And of course, anyone basing important decisions on a single source can generally be described as stupid. Not just when that source is wikipedia.

I wouldn't use it as a primary source, but it's quite accurate.



It leaves out to much for me to use it anymore.

Most of the information on it is fairly good, and so long as you keep in mind that it's not going to be 100% accurate you can use it quite productively. The links provided at the bottom of most pages are normally very useful for further reading.

Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but except for basic things ( "what was that cartoon about again ?") not suited to be an end point.

And of course, anyone basing important decisions on a single source can generally be described as stupid. Not just when that source is wikipedia.


True. You couldn't write an 5 page essay based on what wikipedia gives you, it's ok for some things but for history you would be better off reading a book.

I use it as a jumping off point for research for my History Course, but I'd never cite from it or use it exclusively.

This poll leaves out more then wikipedia does

Personaly it depends on the topic you are trying to research ... tech topics or really current events it is one of the few free resources out there. But like any other internet source make sure that you document when you refferenced it and keep a copy of that information as sourced

True. You couldn't write an 5 page essay based on what wikipedia gives you, it's ok for some things but for history you would be better off reading a book.
Eh, I've done that for some essays. One was on Burke's Reflections on the Revolutions in France and I got a 68 on it (a high 2:1 mark).

I've actually cited ( and seen professors cite) Wikipedia in projects and presentations. Of course, these are all technology-related, so Wikipedia turns out to be a pretty reliable source in that general field. Some of my textbooks were cited as sources in some of the articles, so I was pretty safe from the get-go.

Most larger wikipedia articles are good information since they have references to other sources and were their information comes from. But my teachers do not find Wikipedia a very valid source, but it is a good site for finding other sources.

Would I site it as a source? No but its a good place to find some sort of direction to go in. At worse it lets you figure out which topics to look up for your report/whatever you have to do.

It's a good starting point and usually pretty accurate.

What is it Wikipedia leaves out again?

Do you think wikipedia is a valid source? I don't as it is vandalized a lot and is so simplified due to limits that it leaves out a lot of information.
1. Only current events and controversial things are vandalized and they are also fixed quickly.
2. Simple is good. Also, a lot of their articles aren't simple(Chem and MAth ones)

It really depends. The less controversial the subject, the better the information tends to be.

1. Only current events and controversial things are vandalized and they are also fixed quickly.
2. Simple is good. Also, a lot of their articles aren't simple(Chem and MAth ones)



I have seen Japan's page locked because of that. It isn't anymore, but it was.

I've tried a small experiment once, where I posted a two page, fully professional looking article complete with statistics and everything upon a false war in the Island of Fiji. It seemed correct, logical and such, but under fives minutes it was locked for False information and was being evaluated on the origins of the information.

So Wikipedia is being checked quite a bit, just to let you know.

I use it for everything...I LOVE IT

I've tried a small experiment once, where I posted a two page, fully professional looking article complete with statistics and everything upon a false war in the Island of Fiji. It seemed correct, logical and such, but under fives minutes it was locked for False information and was being evaluated on the origins of the information.

So Wikipedia is being checked quite a bit, just to let you know.


Thats good. I did that to once, just not like that.

It's great for a casual reference source, but nothing more. Even Wikipedia themselves make this very clear, and if that wasn't enough for you, the numerous stories of people failing school courses for citing Wikipedia and other such incidents should seal the deal.

Wikipedia: The only source needed for arguing on the interweb.

It is a font of debate info that is so complete that it argues internally with itself at times.

I've tried a small experiment once, where I posted a two page, fully professional looking article complete with statistics and everything upon a false war in the Island of Fiji. It seemed correct, logical and such, but under fives minutes it was locked for False information and was being evaluated on the origins of the information.

So Wikipedia is being checked quite a bit, just to let you know.

Proof that you cannot trust Wiki. People intentionally input false info just because they can.

Thats good. I did that to once, just not like that.

A second person admits adding false input to Wiki...just because they could.

How many more?

A second person admits adding false input to Wiki...just because they could.

How many more?


LOL! I changed Hilary Duff's name to horseface!:D

The fact that Wikipedia includes what amounts to a self-system of checks and balances aids to its credibility. Sure, users are able to post information, however bias or unrealistic. However, users are- in turn- able to review and edit any false information.

A second person admits adding false input to Wiki...just because they could.

How many more?

Plenty no doubt. What I would like to see implemented in wikipedia are credentials. If you are an expert in a given field and can provide proof of that to wikipedia, your additions and edits to articles would get a special "expert" mark.

LOL! I changed Hilary Duff's name to horseface!:D

Horseface Duff?

I hope so because I can think of a better person to name Hillary Horseface:p

I love Wikipedia.

I don't know how's running the moderation of the biggest versions of Wikipedia (English, French, German); but the Spanish version, which is tiny compared to those three, is a very valid source. I've been thinking on your comments; maybe your wikipedias are too big to be properly surveilled (sp?); so errors are harder to fix and gets more common to face a vandalic act. But the es.wikipedia.org articles (specially the scientific ones) are very deep and clear.

BTW, why to attack Wikipedia intentionally? Where's the benefit?

Horseface Duff?

I hope so because I can think of a better person to name Hillary Horseface:p



Not horseface duff, just horseface. :D

Wikipedia's as good a source as anything. You should judge it the same way as anything else: by its sources. If there are no citations in an article, don't trust it. If it has citations, follow them and see if they're legitimate. As a previous poster said, Wikipedia is a great starting point for research. What in the world could be wrong with that?

It isn't a piece of crap, but it is defiantly not an academically acceptable web site. There is no way to know if the information you are getting is correct. If you do use it, always verify the information with another source.

The fact that Wikipedia includes what amounts to a self-system of checks and balances aids to its credibility. Sure, users are able to post information, however bias or unrealistic. However, users are- in turn- able to review and edit any false information.

Users also review and edit any true information. So popularity and tenacity somewhat govern what is considered or at least shown in Wiki. If those purporting the truth in a given article are fewer in number and less tenacious than those who wish an untruth shown on Wiki, then the odds are when a random person accesses that article he will see the untruth.

Just FYI, I'm Hichiwawa... I never post with that account and didn't realize I was logged on as Hichiwawa.

I've used it as a source, and it's generally quite reliable. Just by the sheer number of users on the English encyclopedia (and of course anonomous readers), vandalism and incorrect information is usually cleared very quickly. As such, I see it as a reliable source, as long as the article provides references.

As a jumping-off point to find other research leads, Wikipedia is a clearing house in the same way that Google is for finding Internet links to subjects you type into it. You wouldn't stop your search with Google if you were looking for someone or something online, and you certainly shouldn't stop your search at Wikipedia for information with ANY kind of depth.

For surface information, superfluous stuff like who won the World Series in, say, 1954 or something (just an example, I really don't like baseball), Wikipedia is fine.

And Suiko, I don't get you. Theoretically, as a socialist, you should LOVE Wikipedia!

A second person admits adding false input to Wiki...just because they could.

How many more?

Maybe by reading the posts you'll notice the false info was quickly removed?

It's great for a casual reference source, but nothing more. Even Wikipedia themselves make this very clear, and if that wasn't enough for you, the numerous stories of people failing school courses for citing Wikipedia and other such incidents should seal the deal.

What did they do, use Wiki as their only source, or was it one of many?

It isn't a piece of crap, but it is defiantly not an academically acceptable web site. There is no way to know if the information you are getting is correct. If you do use it, always verify the information with another source.

There is a way. Check the sources of the information. A good Wiki article has sources; if it doesn't, it's marked.

Maybe by reading the posts you'll notice the false info was quickly removed?


Maybe Wiki being correct most of the time is good enough for you?

Maybe Wiki being correct most of the time is good enough for you?

Compared to what? All the time? Show me anything like that, and tell me why everyone isn't using it. How much is "most"? Can you give me some kind of percentage?

Compared to what? All the time? Show me anything like that, and tell me why everyone isn't using it. How much is "most"? Can you give me some kind of percentage?

I will take that as a "yes".

Maybe Wiki being correct most of the time is good enough for you?

Why wouldn't something that's right "most of the time" be good enough for you?

If you use Wiki, check its sources to see if they're legitimate. Again, what in the world could POSSIBLY be wrong with responsible usage of Wikipedia? It's a great, free, easy starting point for research.

Know that Wikipedia is more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is accepted in schools more than Wikipedia is.

Why wouldn't something that's right "most of the time" be good enough for you?

If you use Wiki, check its sources to see if they're legitimate. Again, what in the world could POSSIBLY be wrong with responsible usage of Wikipedia? It's a great, free, easy starting point for research.

The question is whether Wiki is a valid source. It might be, if at the particular moment you referenced an article it was true. It might not be if at the particular instant that you referenced an article it was not true. It is not a valid original source for anything. Original publishings and findings are expressly forbidden. At best it is a reference to find valid sources.