NationStates Jolt Archive

The online encyclopedia is a great place to look up any type of information that you want, from biographies to foods. However, since it's information is all input by users it accuracy can be put into question. Does any one use it regurarly and what's your opinion on it? Can it be trusted? Or not?

I have found, almost contrary to what you'd expect, that the more complex the subject, the more accurate the entry.

I've used it from time to time to refresh my memory on certain legal topics, read case summaries and things like that. I haven't really found anything glaringly obvious and incorrect.

I think that's because there's a bit of self selection going on. Who would bother (or even be able to put up a passably good try) at writing an article about quantum physics other than a physicist? Or who would write about law but a lawyer?

I just use the articles for sources which I can get away with citing.

i haven't come across anything really stupid (apart from the odd joke article or something) in years of using it. i don't use it for anything more than personal research and entertainment, though... if i were ever to write an academic paper again, i certainly would not use it. well, i might as a jumping-off point, but nothing more than that.

the free and easy availability of such a depth and breadth of information, however, is just fantastic, and i love it for that

its okay for general stuff but if your actually doing something beyond wasting time then you need to follow the links at the bottom of the pages because a wizard says so

It's nice for personal research. However, it's not academical, so for writing a paper you'd best stick to some of the sources they cite.

I'm using it for basic and private research. Can't use it for university work - papers quoting wiki are usually regarded "unscientific".
Although, I've heard of comparisons between printed encyclopedias and wiki, and the printed ones are more of less as reliable as wiki.

I have yet to come across something really stupid and obviously wrong.

Plus, one can spend hours browsing through earth history and get from one thing to another to yet another. I've ended up reading about stuff without even knowing how the heck I got there in the first place. :tongue:

wikipedia is quite possibly one of the most powerful unified public information sources ever created. the essentially infinite nature of the project, combined with its ease of access and use, and its overall reliability, allow it to blow dead tree encyclopedias out of the water, for example.

I have found, almost contrary to what you'd expect, that the more complex the subject, the more accurate the entry.

I've used it from time to time to refresh my memory on certain legal topics, read case summaries and things like that. I haven't really found anything glaringly obvious and incorrect.

I think that's because there's a bit of self selection going on. Who would bother (or even be able to put up a passably good try) at writing an article about quantum physics other than a physicist? Or who would write about law but a lawyer?

Further, as the subject becomes more complex, it becomes more likely that only people with some knowledge or training in that area will read it. Who better to notice and be able to correct errors in an article on some obscure point of law than a lawyer? How many lay people would even read it?

I'm using it for basic and private research. Can't use it for university work - papers quoting wiki are usually regarded "unscientific".
It's always a good place to start in order to get a basic understanding of a subject.

Also, I tend to get lost in the damn thing. A couple of years ago, I was doing an essay on British church archaeology and was looking over an article on church architecture in England. About half an hour later I looked up and realised I was reading through an article on the landsknechts in Germany in the 1500s. Shit knows how I managed to get there from the starting point.

I use it as a source for sources.

Wikipedia has it's obvious shortcomings, but I've come to respect it quite a bit more than I did at first when, after vandalizing a small part of an obscure page for a laugh, my changes we reverted within just a few hours.

Wikipedia's a very mixed bag: parts of it are good, others are poorly written, out of date, or just wrong. After finding too many mistakes looking for history stuff, I gave up w/ it.

My wife, a chemist, read thru a lot of the chemistry articles, and divided them into two classes: good ones, which were plagerized from chemistry books she had, and bad ones, which weren't. But this was some years ago that she looked, so it's possible the wikipedians cleaned up their act.

For really technical subjects, I still recommend either books or dedicated and well-curated sites, such as Mathworld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/) and Scienceworld (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/).

WRT to comparisons with printed encyclopedias, the one I know about was a Nature paper with serious problems. For example, all errors were considered equally wrong, so "The moon is made of green cheese." was taken as no worse than "The moon is 4 billion years old.", when a more modern value is a little older. There may be other comparisons; I haven't checked.

The 'Random Article' feature on Wiki has provided me with many hours of entertainment.
When I'm not being randomly entertained here, of course.

For really technical subjects, I still recommend either books or dedicated and well-curated sites, such as Mathworld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/) and Scienceworld (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/).
Wikipedia will never be a proper alternative to a real text book.

I have found, almost contrary to what you'd expect, that the more complex the subject, the more accurate the entry.

I've used it from time to time to refresh my memory on certain legal topics, read case summaries and things like that. I haven't really found anything glaringly obvious and incorrect.

I think that's because there's a bit of self selection going on. Who would bother (or even be able to put up a passably good try) at writing an article about quantum physics other than a physicist? Or who would write about law but a lawyer?

I will tell you, though, I'm constantly seeing technically accurate but grammatically horrendous articles on some science topics. It makes me wonder sometimes.

It's always a good place to start in order to get a basic understanding of a subject.
I agree.
Also, I tend to get lost in the damn thing. A couple of years ago, I was doing an essay on British church archaeology and was looking over an article on church architecture in England. About half an hour later I looked up and realised I was reading through an article on the landsknechts in Germany in the 1500s. Shit knows how I managed to get there from the starting point.
Welcome to "Lost in Wikiland!" - Happens to me all the time.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590

somebody, think of the childrens!

Wikipedia is useful to get a summary of a topic.

It's no different to asking someone you know - useful, but possibly inaccurate and doesn't tell the whole story.

for debates online wiki is fine.

for papers I tend to use wiki by finding the wiki then checking back with the sources.

Always moving forward, Wiki is. It works well for me.

Wikipedia I find is often helpful. A lot more than Uncyclopedia :p

I think that's because there's a bit of self selection going on. Who would bother (or even be able to put up a passably good try) at writing an article about quantum physics other than a physicist? Or who would write about law but a lawyer?
That's actually why I prefer going to other sites for information first. The articles are often very technical (albeit accurate), and the fact there is not one person writing them means they're not easy to read, anyway.

For just looking up facts, though, Wikipedia is one of the best sites there is.

Do we really need another "pedia" thread?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590

somebody, think of the childrens!
I completely agree with this article. Wikipedia's graphic images will corrupt the mind of any schoolchild doing a report on prostitution or striptease.

I guess it depends what you're wanting information on.

Generally I've found that it's helpful, and at least tells you when the material might be suspect. Like everything else on the internet, it's taken with a grain of salt, but it's been helpful when I come across something Random & Interesting that I want to know more about, such as coconut crabs, St. Elmo's Fire or the very first photograph. It's also proven helpful with my math homework as well.

Wiki is almost completely accurate, it has a staff of editors that make sure nothing too stupid gets put on.