NationStates Jolt Archive

I say most of the time. And if anyne asks me to post a link, I'll laugh so hard I'll probably pass out!

I don't think it's good for reports but if you just want the basic info on something...

No more or no less than Encyclopedia Britannica, apparently.

But that's all it is; an encyclopedia. Treat it as such. Not as the font of all knowledge that some have taken it to be.

it depends on what you are using it for.

its not as good as a book by the leading expert in whatever field you are reading about; its probably better than your friend who knows everything.

It's good for getting background info, or something you've never heard of before, but I certainly wouldn't trust it 100%.

In a debate, I think its fine to use wiki, but not as irresolute proof. Its much better to use as merely one reference, or to highlight debate around certain issues.

In general, its good for a quick and dirty read-up.

Most of the time Wiki has an article based on (a set of) facts.

Unfortunately most of the time the facts are told through a unhealthy bias.

So I'd say Wikipedia is never a trusted source but sometimes it is trustworthy enough.

Depends on how active the Weird Al fans have been.

As with anything check the sources.

You'll find this pedia more reliable friend:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

:p

You'll find this pedia more reliable friend:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

:p

I love how today's article is the Republican Party. And the things it says…

Is Wikipedia trustworthy?


Insufficient data. I don't know that any source is trustworthy until I take the time to review many different sources on a given topic and compare what they say. If a general consensus on the given topic emerges due to agreement among the many sources, I can be assured that there is a higher probability that this consensus reflects truth.

But I cannot judge a single source in a vacuum. Taken alone, every possible source is suspect until proven otherwise. Whether a book with a lot of Ph.Ds on the cover or an online encyclopedia that any idiot can edit.

Do you trust your fellow man?

I love how today's article is the Republican Party. And the things it says…

There were some great bits. It totally glosses over the 2000 election but goes into great detail on the 2004 election. The 2000 election was hugely contentious and will go down in history for the fervor after the original declaration of a winner. It's highly disputed and it's treated like a sidenote in the article.

The 2004 election WAS actually a side-not and it gets a paragraph.

And the part about killing the embryos. And the part about "believing in equality" especially religious equality. I laughed out loud.

I wish the Dems would do a liberalapedia, since I'm sure it would be equally ridiculous.

Oh, I almost forgot the best part. Republicans are "centrist or slightly right of center". Hehe. That's classic.

Well, recently the admins at wikipedia have stepped up their efforts to force editors to provide sources for what they write in the articles. Although this is indeed pretty annoying for the editors, it will lead to an enhanced reliability. So I would say that wikipedia is more and more becoming trustworthy (even though I removed my Tolkien material).

As with anything check the sources.
This.

I use Wikipedia a lot, but I'll always check out the citations to satisfy myself that what I am 'learning' is accurate.

On scientific articles, Wikipedia is trustworthy, comparison done with commercial encyclopaedia show that the error level is the same.

On more controversial issues, like in politics, it's sometimes biased in a way or another. But so is every source of information. Trusting blinding any source of information on a controversial topic is insane. So Wikipedia is usually not worse than others.

Yes it is the vast majority of the time. If in doubt for any particular article, check the references at the bottom of the page.

Conserv-APE-dia? ;)

we live in an infinitely diverse universe of infinitely diverse agendas. it fallows that nothing can ever be "trustworthy" in and kind of absolute sense.

wikipedia is what it is. though it is becoming less of what it started out to be.

there are now MANY "wikipedias" in addition to the main one that bears that name.

the best answer to that kind of question lies in an understanding of what it is.

you will never find truth anyplace where truth alone is all that you will find.
you will even less often find it, the harder untruth is endevoured to be excluded.

i think that's what needs to be understood.

by being in the past open, it performed a useful service that could only be provided in that manor.

as anything becomes more popular and more popularly familiar, the more anyone does rely on it, the more of a target it becomes for undermining that reliability.

by it's very nature, an instrument such as wikipedia is especially vulnerable to this effect.

i would say it is as reliable as its moderators can make it, but, there are forces in this world far more powerful and resourceful then they, with far less altruistic agendas.

so it is for that last reason, that i would take with a large grain of salt, ANYthing cited as authority for anything. even academic text, or intelligence agency generate factbooks. all are subject to human fallabilities and the biases of human agendas.

=^^=
.../\...

The German magazine Stern compared the German Wikipedia with a traditional encyclopedia (I think the Brockhaus). And it was not the Brockhaus which was best. Especially in topics about computer science and mathematics, I like it. An additional plus isthat I can click edit and see the formulas in LaTeX code :)

You'll find this pedia more reliable friend:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

:p

Wow, their article on Global Warming has a section entitled "Al Gore's Assault on Science."

I kinda use it like I did my really old encyclopedias when I was a kid.....some of the facts might be wrong, but the general idea is probably there.

*I grew up in the 80's with a set of encyclopedias 30 years old......

You'll find this pedia more reliable friend:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

:p

Wow... it doesn't even have some of the German state capitals as links as if it doesn't expect someone to write about Wiesbaden, Schwerin and some other places. Also it has Schröder's name wrong in the article about Germany.

You'll find this pedia more reliable friend:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

:p
My god, that horrid piece of conservative propaganda calls itself "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Just one look at their article about homosexuality paints a whole different picture, though.

You'll find this pedia more reliable friend:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

:p

And there is absolutely no bias in it. :D

You'll find this pedia more reliable friend:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page


We need to create an anarchipedia....

Wow, their article on Global Warming has a section entitled "Al Gore's Assault on Science."
And that coming from an online "encyclopedia" which considers the Bible to be the ultimate scientific tool. Mind you, I may be exaggerating here a bit.

And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.

Everyone knows a vote not for Clinton is a vote against Clinton.

No mention of 2000.

As with anything check the sources.

My thoughts exactly

Wikipedia is like a comparison wrapped in an analogy folded into a burrito. It makes no sense, but it's actually pretty good.

Yes, absolutely. Most vandalism is removed quickly.

Most of the time wikipedia is reliable. When I was taking chemistry labs and had to do pre-lab reports with the physical properties of the materials we were using, I would go to wikipedia to look up those I couldn't find anywhere else. Generally people don't mess with the science articles.

Usually, especially for less controversial articles. Articles about public figures, well, they might have some facts. Maybe. So might The DaVinci Code.

So easy to fool them... I managed to get an article published on a fictional Channel Island..... Though it looks a bit tougher now