• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Do you trust Wikipedia?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WhereIsTheGod

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Sythe Gold
0
Messages
274
Everyone knows Wikipedia is a horrible site for facts, so I was wondering if he got it from somewhere else before I completely discounted it.
Click to expand...

From the George Bush thread.

Critics have questioned Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, citing its open nature.[6] The site has been criticized for its susceptibility to vandalism, such as the insertion of profanities or random letters into articles, and the addition of false or unverified information,[7] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies,[8] and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[9]

Wikipedia's content policies[10] and sub-projects set up by contributors seek to address these concerns.[11] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived[12][13] and that Wikipedia is generally as accurate as other encyclopedias.[14]

In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has also received major media attention as an online source of breaking news as it is constantly updated,[15][16] having some 6.8 million registered users worldwide, although only a small part is consistently active. When "You" was awarded Time Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular "Web 2.0" service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace.[17]
Click to expand...

Of course, the above quote is from wikipedia. Should you choose to trust the content... that is up to you.
 
2nd post...Cool..
From the information provided above...it doesnt sound so...yeah.
 
ive found wikipedia to be extremely inaccurate on several occasions. specifically when i was looking for tryptamine containing/entheogenic plants.
most of the acacia's they have listed there dont have ANY tryptamine content whatsoever.
 
I don't trust the articles that anyone can edit, and dislike it when someone posts Wikipedia as a source to back them up.
 
[N]ick;2611229 said:
I don't trust the articles that anyone can edit, and dislike it when someone posts Wikipedia as a source to back them up.
Click to expand...

But doesn't the power of free edit keep things current and free of disputes?
 
I trust it on a few kind of things. General historical information is usually fairly accurate, and pretty much anything else that doesn't get too controversial. Most of the important topics they end up locking anyway. I do agree that every once in a while you get a bum article though.
 
Raunch It K said:
lol, if the history teachers dumb enuf to give me an a+ for copy and pasting from wikipedia, i think i trust it.
Click to expand...

hmm.....I didnt get a "a+" but got a 47/50 by copy pasting from wika and googling some pics and "dumbing down" the words with the Synonyms function, so it looks like an year 8 wrote it and not a environmentalist or nerd.
 
Wikipedia is better than 99% of the other shit out there.

1) It lists its sources, so cross referencing is always possible.

2) Vandalism, is monitored very closely, and usually is edited out immediately.

And yes, the very good articles are locked.
 
Nah. To much people like me who go around editting the pages. I editted my schools page and got suspended for 3 days :@
 
There's no doubt Wikipedia has a great source of information that is legit and accurate - however this being the internet, there's always going to be some bogus stuff out there. It's really up to your own ability to make logical decisions about information you read, checking other sources or just plain knowing when something is just silly and false.
 
konvict111 said:
Wikipedia is better than 99% of the other shit out there.

1) It lists its sources, so cross referencing is always possible.

2) Vandalism, is monitored very closely, and usually is edited out immediately.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I find it to be a good starting point for research, yet it should not be taken at face value (due to the editability of Wikipedia).
 
I have no trust issues with Wikipedia.

However, the user base is something else entirely.
 
Wikipedia can be edited by any person, which means the facts could be completely wronnnng its a useless place to do research
 
No. I don't trust it.

There's been plenty of mistakes in Wikipedia; the worst I found last night.
It claims London is the capital of the United Kingdom. As far as I know, London is the capital of England, and England only.
 
my teachers dont let us use wikipedia
i dont think its trustworthy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top