Validity of Wikipedia

[Dan558]

Wikipedia get a lot of bad rap for being wrong, having uneven focus on certain issues (i.e. something "un-important" has a much longer and more extensive article then something that is deemed "important") or vandalized to a great degree.

Have you ever had a big problem with wikipedia? has it ever not fulfilled your general knowledge needs? Have you ever found something to be factually wrong?

I'm not fighting for it so I could use it in papers or anything but it seems to get a lot of criticism over things that I have never experienced with the site. Some people just seem to have beef with it for no reason, YES it can be edited by basically everyone but it is never that big of a problem and if you tried to use it (or anything for that matter) as your ONLY source then that is NOT a problem with the website, its a problem with you...

[Phantom]

Yes, I've noticed a few things within Wikipedia to be a bit false, but I'm not downing the site. I admit, I have used Wikipedia for infomation on a few things in the past, but I never really relied on it alot. Nowadays, I mainly use it as info for some t.v shows I watch or for a new video game I need infomation on. And I used Wiki for help on a few history reports back when I was in high school. So, no I never really had a problem with Wiki, I found some really good infomation on there, and I've also found some faults on wiki, so its a mix of good and bad, whatever you slice it, but wiki is still....well...wiki lol.

[winterborn86]

Ive used it alot of times, like when my partner was telling my about pyramids mars layed out the same as in Egypt (WTF) i used the Wiki to see to if he was telling the truth, cos he often tells me crap, so i use the Wiki to check up on it. Or sometimes when im bored i type in random crap and see what i get lol, the only problems i ever have, is if i want info on something and i don't know how exactly what its called or how to phrase it, then i get given load of stuff i don't need, but that's the only thing i have trouble with other than that it seems pretty muck OK

[ChloChloAriadne]

I've never had any real problems with it, but I'm careful not to hang on every word I read there.

But I think it's quite silly that there's all this fuss about Wikipedia when you can't trust it any more or less than any other shit printed on the web. *shrug*

[Furore]

It's simple. Treat it with suspicion if something isn't referenced, and if you're going to use the information, check the source before taking it too seriously. The same can be said for most sources though.

It pays to do your homework so to speak.

[Raines]

Wiki is fine as long as you don't rely on it too much.
I remember once my teacher pulled over half the class up on the same mistake as they'd all gone to wiki and used some off material.
I see wikipedia as more of a casual thing, to check out random stuff with. For anything serious it's worth looking at wiki but verifying what you find there too.

[Alice]

I'm fine with Wikipedia, and it is usually one of the main places I look at for some info, but it isn't the only place. A variety helps at times. ^^;

If something looks suspicious, I'd check it's source of information. Though in some cases, checking really isn't needed. I'm very well sure that Julius Caesar didn't go around raping everyone he saw.

[Govinda]

Listing Wikipedia as a source in Scottish academic essays is a hanging offence. You'll fail instantly. Despite it often displaying the relevant information more succinctly than most official sites, it still has crazy things listed sometimes. Reading it once led a friend of mine to say in a Politics presentation that the Warsaw Pact was something created by Mikhail Gorbachev to help the secession of Soviet satellite states from Mother Russia in the 80's.

I prefer Unclyclopedia, to be honest. Its articles on Scotland, Sarah Palin and other things are far more factual than the ones on Wiki. Ben Nevis is Mount Doom, I'm sure of it, yet Wiki refuse to recognise that fact for some reason.

[Dan558]

One problem I have found with wiki lately is the complete lack of pictures presented within articles. Many times a picture could at least let me get a better mental picture and an understanding of something. Even for casual things if I'm just randomly surfing Wikipedia if I looked up something like any actor on that site there is apparently "no free Image" for every actor on the planet, I highly doubt that. I know I could easily look them up on Imdb or something but it breaks flow to go to a whole nother website just to find out if thats the girl in ______? was it her that looked like ______?

[Chez Daja]

It's half and half. There's true and false information on there. I wouldn't trust it if I was doing a big college project, unless I knew the information was accurate.

However, for little snipits of information, I'll use it.

[Martin]

Well I'm never going to take anything I read at face value anyways, especially when you read books about Joseph Stalin which claim him to be nothing more than a radical industrialist. History analytical skills help and the bleeding obvious too to realise that's not really the case. Wikipedia's the same. I mean much like PH I'd get chucked off my course pretty much straight away if I was caught using it in assignments and exams... but it's useful to find a background on things.

And much like PH I much prefer Uncyclopedia. Especially John McCain's War on Bears.

[Treize]

I would say that Wikipedia is generally reliable. I'll look at it when I want to look something up for my own knowledge, but when I write papers, I don't use it because I know that some stuff on Wikipedia isn't completely accurate and there are many other sources with better and more information. I consider Wikipedia just to be a quick way to look up basic information.

[Taco-Calamitous]

I used to use it as references for papers ;P Now I'm not in school anymore. It can no longer lead me astray!

I like to look random stuff on wikipedia when I am bored, just to see if there is an overanalyzed article on something I've become interested in spur of the moment. Sometimes the information has been laughably innacurate. I was specifically thinking of one article, but it appears to have been updated since I last looked at it. *shrug*

Urban Dictionary is also good for a few laughs. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Clint]

Wikipedia is reliable. It's true that anybody is allowed to post information on Wikipedia, but unless they can provide proof that what they're saying is accurate, their post will be deleted. What many people don't understand is that the information is checked frequently by moderators.

[Sean]

I wiki shit at school all the time, it's fun when I'm wanting to know some background info, and not taking it as 100% fact but as just... background info.

All in all I think it's fine, just take it in context.

[Dragon_Jiriki]

I'm not in school anymore so i wouldn't be using it for reference info for schoolwork. but i do find it useful for looking up information on games and tv shows, and things i read about in the newspaper or hear on the news. I am fully aware that not everything on the site is referenced popularly but it's one of the few websites i visit every single day.

[You]

Wikipedia is great for information on just about anything. And believe it or not is 100% reliable AS LONG AS THE SOURCE IS LISTED. It so useful for getting started on a project on egyptians, as an example, as it gives a basic outline and references for where the information is taken and so you can use the references for more advanced information as it often lists books where the info is taken from.

When looking into pop culture items it isnt as reliable and is often opinion as there are not any sources to back them up. But as long as the source is there I dont see why it can be called unreliable.

[Usagy]

Use it a lot, also for university papers etc.
Thing is with wikipedia you shouldn't use it as a main source, but only as backup source, if you already got decent knowledge about a certain subject then you'll be able to tell what information is useful and what is not from wiki.
Sure it has some problems, but most information is correct.

Peace out