do you trust wikipedia

[crazybmanp]

i know countless people that all will never use wikipedia, because everyone can edit it.

 

but i am on the other side of this argument, wikipedia is monitored by everyone including the admins, so if something crazy gets put in, it can get fixed and if it happens enough they can lock it.

 

what do you think about wikipedia?

[purifiedinfire]

only when im looking up stuff thats not for school. for reports or other things, definately not.

[Frankie]

The same can be said about open source software, but we use them all the same.

[crazybmanp]

you know, i never looked at it like that, its just even more reason to use wikipedia

[Wizard]

Wikipedia has a strict code about things, and controversial topics cannot be edited by just anyone. I use Wikipedia as a portal because it usually has links to other more reputable sites in the sources section.

 

Also, if I need a quick lookup, Wikipedia is perfect for the task.

[JcX]

Funny question...

Why not??

When someone make the wiki, he/she must be considered about the open-source risks.

There must be always some groups to monitor the source input by the user to ensure that whatever they modify, is based on fact and latest.

Well... of course, wiki doesn't always provide full info about what you want.

But so far, I haven't get any wrong info from wiki yet... did anyone??

[Sungazer]

I think that wiki can generally be trusted, but like everything open source, the users sol descresion is advised.

[AverageJoe]

I remember my english teacher would never allow me to use wikipedia as a source. (I got my info from it anyways). You can always tell if it's accurate by going to the sources which have been sited.

 

Anyways, she said that anyone could go on an edit it. She said that web-sites were reliable because "just anyone" couldn't edit it. So just to prove her wrong I made a temp site (looked legit) made my own source for my own project turned it in got a B (because I told her about my site she dropped me a letter grade). The site included absolutely no valid information

 

All in all, she was an idiot with computers (which tends to po me), so I got her back =P

 

Joe

 

 

[Sungazer]

I remember my english teacher would never allow me to use wikipedia as a source. (I got my info from it anyways). You can always tell if it's accurate by going to the sources which have been sited.

 

Anyways, she said that anyone could go on an edit it. She said that web-sites were reliable because "just anyone" couldn't edit it. So just to prove her wrong I made a temp site (looked legit) made my own source for my own project turned it in got a B (because I told her about my site she dropped me a letter grade). The site included absolutely no valid information

 

All in all, she was an idiot with computers (which tends to po me), so I got her back =P

 

Joe

 

Hahaha thats freakin sweet! I wish I was still in school so I could pull that one!

[Clydefrog]

In my University we had a research team that did a comparison between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. We compared up to 20 different Wiki pages all of various fields by sending them to professors that specialized to those fields. Out of the 20 that were reviewed by the professors, the Encyclopedia Britannica had 3 errors, and Wikipedia had 4. You can say the probability of Wikipedia being incorrect is a bit higher, but not entirely wrong.

 

I trust Wiki, but I made a habit to check, double check and triple check the sources cited at the bottom of the Wiki page before accepting it to be true whenever I need information for a paper.

 

Oh Joe, that is a funny story by the way .. haha

[jjpriest25]

huh, I posted here earlier, but I see no post... that's weird...

 

Anyway, today, I ironically ran across this thing that google offers. www.knol.google.com/k#

It appears to be similar to wikipedia, or maybe even a wikipedia killer? I haven't really investigated it much, but I think it's kind of interesting that I found this on the same day that we are discussing this.

 

Oh, yeah, I had to of posted in here earlier because I got helions for this and I put them in my bank.....whatever.

 

edit: now that I search for stuff in it, knol doesn't seem to be very in depth yet... I searched for "jumpers knee" "tendinitis" and "zoo" and got no results.

[Wizard]

I remember my english teacher would never allow me to use wikipedia as a source. (I got my info from it anyways). You can always tell if it's accurate by going to the sources which have been sited.

 

Anyways, she said that anyone could go on an edit it. She said that web-sites were reliable because "just anyone" couldn't edit it. So just to prove her wrong I made a temp site (looked legit) made my own source for my own project turned it in got a B (because I told her about my site she dropped me a letter grade). The site included absolutely no valid information

 

All in all, she was an idiot with computers (which tends to po me), so I got her back =P

 

Joe

 

Hahaha thats freakin sweet! I wish I was still in school so I could pull that one!

Lol, I did that for a Spanish article once.

[Timebandit]

It's pretty reliable. If it says something ridiculous, say about Bush having a pet pink elephant, it's clearly not true. It's the little things people change, like a birthday by one day. If you do change thing to false facts, you need to get out sometime.

[Wizard]

It does say that Jimmy Carter was attacked by a killer rabbit...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

except that's true

[phoexer]

I'd have to go with the view that Wikipedia is kinda like open source.

is there a risk factor involved yes there is. but as with any Open source project the larger the community the lower the risk. i don't really see 2 million people from around the world conniving together just to bring YOU wrong information, do you?