Wikipedia

[araharu]

According to wikipedia,Wikipedia (pronunciation Spoken content icon) is a free,[3] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a blend of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[4] it is the biggest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet.[5][6]*

*Note--liable to change at any time for any reason by any person.

So, wiki. Viable resource, or an unreliable hack?
You decide!

[DarkWarrior]

I've always been one who generally believes that Wikipedia is an excellent resource, article/subject pending.
Obviously, an unfinished/new/article about upcoming stuff is going to be rather inaccurate. But the older articles with a significant amount of edits are extremely likely to be extremely accurate. And given that a lot of articles are sourced, yeah.

[MarioMaster3000]

I usually use Wikipedia as a source for information when I need info on just random stuff or even school work. However, it was banned to be used as a source by my English professor at my university because of the fact the anyone can edit it, and we might get the wrong information.

[killshot]

I think wikipedia is a great source, especially if you don't already know much about what you are researching. It's a great place to begin, because it links to other resources that may be considered more reliable. I trust wikipedia as much as I would a print encyclopedia.

[Ratchetandclank]

It"s helped me for most of my assignments at school

[Chidori]

Wikipedia and Google are omniputent beings.

Worship them.

[lukeh]

Wikipedia isn't a messed up site or anything. They dont really go around messing up just anything except i heard they messed with the election candidates. They replaced Hillary's picture with a walrus.

[littlekuribohrulz20]

got that right.

google and wiki are the ultimate reaserch places anywere.

just type anything you want and it will come up.Rather than going across town to get a book.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

lol at everyone thinking Wikipedia is credible.

[CrazyKook]

Most of wikipedia is accurate, I think, although I know quite few people who absolutely hate it because they says it's really unreliable, which I think is a bit unfair.
I've used wikipedia for coursework and it's helped loads, and I use it some times for stuff that I'd like to know, eg: about an anime (the episodes lists). I think its as good as a printed encyclopedia and it's a good place to begin, since it gives links and stuff for further research.

[Chidori]

Wikipedia is highly accurate for the most part, if you try and edit something to make it incorrect it will have been changed back within an hour or so. For every dick eye who wants to try at make it wrong there are many more people who want to keep it correct. Wikipedia is your friend, it's like a robot that does your homework for you.

[Sophie]

It might be reliable, I'm surely not denying that. But it should never be used as a source because it is so easily edited. If I were a teacher and some kids tried to use Wikipeida as a source for research I'd fail them.

[Skarphedin]

If you actually look at their policy discussion pages, the users who actually run wikipedia regularly are zealots about accuracy and neutral point of view. It's fascinating.

They also run so many anti-vandal bots that it's nearly impossible for people to vandalize it anymore.

[DarkWarrior]

It might be reliable, I'm surely not denying that. But it should never be used as a source because it is so easily edited. If I were a teacher and some kids tried to use Wikipeida as a source for research I'd fail them.
This is the very reason it is good a s a resource. People are constantly updating pages with newer, more accurate information. Oh, sure, you get the vandals and/or rabid fan(boys/girls), but on the whole, it's probably one of the best sources you'll find for anything.

[Chidori]

If I were a teacher and some kids tried to use Wikipeida as a source for research I'd fail them.
You would make a pretty aweful teacher then. Failing children because they gave you the correct information.

[Sophie]

I DON'T MEAN FAIL THE ENTIRE CLASS.
Fail the assignment.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I think Wikipedia is definitely a good place to start your research and to find out something for the heck of it. It also really helps if you're looking up stuff about TV shows and other subjects that generally don't have their own articles written about them.
But I can see why it can't be used as a credible source. Not just because someone can edit it and you might catch the page before it gets reedited, but because you don't know who wrote the article; it's all anonymous. I know it seems like a trivial thing to worry about but there are better, more specific articles written by people in a certain profession and are actually published. It's much easier to site a source like that instead of Wikipedia, especially since it does change a lot and the paraphrase/quote you got from it may not be there anymore, whereas an actually published article will most likely remain the same.

Like I said, it's a great starting point for research, but if you're writing an academic essay, you should expand from there because Wikipedia probably won't even give you all the research and specifics you need; it'll help give you some ideas, but don't just stay there.

[HeavyDDR]

I use Wikipedia for school projects all the time. However, I don't take the information directly from it. I find some info, then Google that info for better information about that info.

Everybody wins.

[Chidori]

That's exactly what i was referring to, not once did I mention failing the entire class.

[Sophie]

Well then it's obvious you've never been to University. Maybe high schools let Wikipedia pass as a valid source of information, but a University wont. I love wikipedia, don't get me wrong I really do. But it's just not something you can use in research or to prove a point. It's potentially far to unreliable. It's greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness.

[DarkWarrior]

Any encyclopedia could then be considered "potentially unreliable". The fact is that it is reliable. The "Anybody can edit it" logic works both ways, but there are far, far many more people adding accurate content than those just adding in moronic crap. And just as many people are removing the moronic crap. The fact is that it can never be written off simply because of that fact. If one were to argue about pages with "Needs sources" or such, then that may be different. But, overall, it's more reliable and up-to-date than any other encyclopedia.

[HeavyDDR]

It sucks though when you spend over an hour writing an article about the plot of a video game only for it to get deleted because someone thought it was far too long.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I've actually heard that encyclopedias aren't the best sources anyways, and in fact not recommended.

[Prodigs]

Generally if anything is inaccurate on wiki, it's fairly noticeable, either it sounds farfetched or has no citation to source it. People argue the 'anyone can put anything' idea, but anything written there sticks out like a sore thumb.

The thing that pissed me off was the decision to remove trivia sections. Those were the highlights of the article for me. I love finding out facts about the movie that are interesting and make you think for a second...but no, apparently it's no good, and information in trivia sections has to be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Well that's just inconvienient, I don' t want to read the entire 'character conception' paragraph (for example) just to know a small fact. It's easier when they're grouped together.

[Chidori]

Yeah, those sections were sick. I found out about Robin Williams' love for Evangelion from one of those things.

[Tatterdemalion]

Wikipedia is a great source of information, and a testament ot the power of non-profit, internet based volunteer collaborative efforts. For the most part, Wikipedia is accurate, because in addition to the sheer number of people cntributing information to the site, inaccurate information can be removed by anyone as soon as it is detected.

It's odd, normally when I read peoples' discussions of Wikipedia, there's a small but significant handfull who cricicize it for being inaccurate simply because anyone can edit it, without taking into account the actual facts...but really I don't see any of that here. Well done guys, I'm very pleasantly surprised by your thoughtfulness and sensibility.

Although it's true, Wikipedia should never be used as a source for any sort of research paper, because it is not guaranteed that the information is accurate. Interestingly enough, I'd say that the people who would know about this the most are Wikipedia editors...what's actually pretty interesting is that Wikipedia has pretty specific standards for what can be used as a source for a Wikipedia article, so by Wikipedia's own standards, Wikipedia would not be considered a reliable source (that is, a site like WIkipedia could never be used as a source for a WIkipedia article).

Also, Jimmy Wales often brings up an interesting point, which is that when doing research papers, any sort of encyclopedia is generally not accepted as a source, so whether or not Wikipedia is an accurate enough encyclopedia is actually irrelevant.

And as far as Wikipedia being used in high schools, I'd say that the main problem is that schools don't teach students how to do actual research. Teachers fear Wikipedia mainly because they know their students are not capable of finding credible sources, or actually distinguishing reliable sources from unreliable sources, so they ban Wikipedia, or sometimes the internet altogether, in the hopes that students will be forced to find sources that have a higher chance of being reliable.

Interestingly enough though, just because a source is published, let's say in a book, that doesn't mean it's accurate. I've actually read books where I've found information I know to be untrue. So really the problem in terms of research is not Wikipedia, but is instead ignorance on the part of young people doing research, stemming from a faulty education system.

[geminigirl]

Yeah they banned wikipedia at my school

The ban lasted I think less than a week

We are now allowed to use wikipedia again although the year 12's have been warned that it could be potentially unreliable and should only be used as a starting point.

Personally I don't see why they banned it in the first place.

[yamiangie]

I think that Wikipedia is a good for pop culture and quickly looking up things. I've had Profs. say yes it is a good starting point. But the fact that anyone can edit the thing makes checking to see if a student has plagerized woulde be a real pain. Worse some idiot could go in and delelet the info you quoted or something.
Also it's an encyclopedia the don't want you quoteing those things in if you are in or past highschool.
I will admit that I did use the information on the site to help me find the right original air dates of episodes of doctor who I was writing about for a paper. I mean they summarys ever always every good for that show. And to MLA a tv show you seem to need an airdate.
I will take the time to say that citeing a paper is evil and I can never seem to do it write because they keep changinging how to cite things.

[DarkWarrior]

But the fact that anyone can edit the thing makes checking to see if a student has plagerized woulde be a real pain.
If you're using a certain revision as a source, and you know that that revision is correct, you can get a link to that specific revision, and no matter what happens to the article, that link & the information on it would stay the same. So that's more or less irrelevant.

[Henriksson]

Those who say that Wikipedia is unreliable, has anyone actually read an article? Every single one of them is a dang essay!

[Sophie]

No one has said that Wikipedia is unreliable.
We're saying that it is potentially unreliable.
There is a BIG difference.

[viarules]

I always used WIkipedia except when I moved to my new school, they went as far as banning it from the computers!

Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid? Sure Wikipedia has some faulty articles, but every one I've used has been right and easy to find information. It is also not acceptable as a source in a bibliography at my school... I don't really understand it...

[Tasman001]

My schools never blocked wiki pedia, but they never allowed to use it as a source, so I always just game them links to their sited websites, and I'd get good grades.
but in any rate, wikipedia is awesome, it has taught me so many meaningless things.

[KatsunoHitomi]

Me too. I love all the random stuff Wikipedia has taught me.

That being said, I think one needs to be careful whith regards to Wikipedia. You never know when you'll come across a vandalized page.

[DarkWarrior]

Then you check revision history, or wait all of 5 seconds for a bot to fix it. Almost all the vandalism is blatantly obvious.

[NMPTILU]

Wikipedia sucks.

[Tatterdemalion]

Would you care to provide an argument to back up your claim? Because without one, your statement really doesn't mean much.

[NMPTILU]

Not reliable enough. If you know nothing of the subject, then you don't know whether the information it's giving you is true or not. The only thing I see wikipedia useful for is the links that some people give at the bottom so you can compare information to find the true one.

As for the banning of wikipedia from computers, all my school does is forbid us to list it as a source on our projects.

[Tatterdemalion]

See, the thing is that you shouldn't take Wikipedia at face value, but then again, you shouldn't take anything at face value.

I agree that as a research tool Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but for general reference it is, for the most part, pretty accurate.

The thing is that in addition to the external links, Wikipedia does have a verifiability policy, which is what all of the citations are for. That is, people don't just put in a bunch of folk wisdom, but actually provide sources for their information.

And in addition, the number of people who edit Wikipedia, accompanied by the fact that it is indeed a wiki, means that in the event that there is inaccurate information, it can be removed instantly. So while Wikipedia is not a reliable source, in the stricter sense of the word, it still generally has a high standard of accuracy.

And also, keep in mind that whenever doing any sort of research, one should always verify one's information, because even published, reliable sources are not always 100% accurate. (and yes, in addition to the corrections page of the New York Times, I've read books and articles containing information I've known to be false...not that it happens often, but no one is infalliable. Also, "Dord" is not a word, even though Webster's dictionary would have you believe otherwise.)

So yeah, for serious research Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but for general information it is still, for the most part, accurate.

[Titan50]

I use Wikipedia a lot, for schoolwork to just finding out random crap,a nd the vandalism sticks out like a sore thumb.
The annoying thing is, the editors in it are so damn ANAL over everything.
For example, the fact that the Foo Fighters won a Grammy for Best Hard Rock Performance is not enough evidence to prove they lie in the Hard Rock genre.
WTF

[Mullon]

I enjoy Wikipedia for interesting reada. But I never use it for serious research, just more of a way to fill in blanks and point me in the direction of what to research.

My old teacher used to tell us a cautionary tale about using Wikipedia for reasearch. She told us of a student of hers who had to write a paper on Sir Isaac Newton. The problem was that the Wikipedia article said convincingly that he was a hermaphrodite, and the student incorporated that into his paper. He did not do well.

[PhillyEagles4Life]

The fact that it can be edited by anybody makes it a dangerous reference to use, if i'm writing a research paper for school pretty much the number 1 rule is to not use wikipedia. I usually only use wikipedia if I need to look up something random that isn't for school.

[Tatterdemalion]

True, Wikipedia isn't a reliable research tool, but then again, keep in mind that encyclopedias, and similar tertiary sources, shouldn't be used for research papers and the like in general.

Also, keep in mind that you should always check your information against other sources, no matter where you get it from...always check your information.

It seems to me that the real problem isn't Wikipedia, but the fact that too many students don't know how to do effective and responsible research...then again, such material is rarely taught in schools, so I don't blame them. I blame the schools.

Also, keep in mind that by Wikipedia standards, Wikipedia wouldn't even be considered a reliable source...in fact, Wikipedia editors are more particular about sources and verification than a lot of teachers (at least at a secondary school level)...so really you can actually learn a greatdeal about research by editing Wikipedia.

And as far as Isaac Newton being a hermaphrodite, I predict that I'll be spending all night searching through the history of the Isaac Newton article to see if such an edit ever actually existed...but really, I just call that gulibility (if there was ever such a word). That's not a danger of Wikipedia, that's a danger of doing very sloppy research. Wouldn't you agree?

[NMPTILU]

See the thing is, a year or two back (before I knew it couldn't be trusted) Wikipedia gave me a complete bull story about the president and his cabinet, and I almost used it on a really important project before my mom pointed out the mistake.
Never trusted it since :)

(However I do use it for stupid things occasionally ;))

[Spoofs3]

Some things cannot be trusted, Wikipedia is a sourse, But like all other sources you must double check that source with another one.
I have nothing against it, And you may say it could be unreliable but this is the internet we are talking about, Anyone can post anything, Everything is potentially unreliable.

[SunGodRa]

Citing wikipedia as a source is always a big no-no in any serious research. What I sometimes do is to find the wikipedia article on whatever I'm researching, then go to the bottom of the page where there is all the references for the page are, and get my info from them, not from the article. It's an easy way to find a bunch of relevant websites that you CAN cite as sources.

[Tatterdemalion]

This particular president, or just the office of the president? Because articles about politicians, especially U.S. politicians, are among the most frequent targets of vandalism...

...but for the record, what was the sotory? Do you remember? I'm not questioning you or anything, I'm just curious. If you remember what it was, please do tell, I'd be interested.

[NMPTILU]

Yeah I remember lol.

They told me that if the president, the vice president, and the cabinet all have to be in one place at a certain time, then they choose one person from the cabinet to stay at a secure undisclosed location so they can take over as president in case all the others are killed.

[DannyLilithborne]

Wikipedia is useful to begin searching for information on something, but just about every topic with any amount of controversy is extremely heatedly debated with inane logic that boggles the mind.

On the bright side, WP does not suffer fools gladly and the greatly retarded shit is quickly disposed of.

[trlkly]

It sucks that people can't get through their heads that Wikipedia is just as accurate as any other source. Anybody can edit anything. There's no proof that when you get a book about, say, the Holocaust, that it wasn't published by a Holocaust denier who wrote under a pseudonym just to give himself arguments that he can refute in his book.

Of course Wikipedia is only a place to begin searching for information on a topic. So is Google. So is Snopes or The Straight DopeSo is an encyclopedia. So is a Library, So is a book written by an expert. Etc.

If you use these as your only source, you're going to get things wrong. That's why you have a brain. And other sources.

Most of that has already been said. Another point is that you must read the discussion pages to get an idea of how good the article is.

[Tatterdemalion]

Thank you for mentioning Snopes.

[Bruno]

Wikipedia is reliable in some sort, the article can edited, but it is reviewed, and thus inaccuracies tend to be eliminated by time. Wikipedia is good as a start, data is well organized, summarized and links for details are available. Not everything is available there, however you can get a good idea about any subject you need to jump in to.

[Animegirlzzzzzzz]

Not for my homework but for spontanious research out of curiousity.

[bakurasfangirl]

I edited Dan Green's wiki page you should check it out soon before someone get's rid of it! <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'>

[KuroStarr]

Hm...For the most part Wikipedia is reliable.
My friend's parents have Wikipedia blocked from all the computers in her house.

[MrsSallyBakura]

That wasn't worth a necro. :P

When you're studying music literature and history and looking up musical terms and whatnot, Wikipedia is pretty much the ONLY place you can look to find it all out. That kind of information is so scattered, if it exists at all on the Internet, that it's impossible to find without it.

For the ballet Coppelia, in the program they had to get some of their information from Wikipedia. Not all of it, as there are music websites, but there are so many issues with copyrights and most musical terms aren't in the regular dictionary, so really, what can you do?