Can You Trust Wikipedia?
December 7th, 2007This week, people all over Germany are seeing the following magazine cover:
Stern, a major German weekly, has reviewed 50 articles from various subject categories in the German Wikipedia and compared them to articles in a well-known traditional German language encyclopedia. Their conclusion, based on expert feedback: Wikipedia is actually significantly more accurate, comprehensive, complete and correct than the 15-volume paper encyclopedia it was compared to.
In fact, Wikipedia has come out well in any systematic quality comparison ever conducted. A review by Nature in December 2005 that compared Wikipedia with the Encyclopaedia Britannica showed that the number of errors in both encyclopedias was almost equal. (Britannica, unsurprisingly, disagreed, and Nature responded once more.) And a 2004 systematic comparison of German Wikipedia articles with those in two other encyclopedias also found Wikipedia to be accurate and comprehensive — but lacking multimedia.
Due to its radical openness, Wikipedia requires readers to be aware of the method through which it is produced: massive open collaboration. There is no pre-publication review; articles are constantly being worked on, pushed ever closer to an ideal summary of a topic. Wikipedians care deeply about quality, and processes like Featured Article Candidates, Peer Review, and Articles for Deletion are used to assess it. Did you even know that these processes exist? There are dozens more like it — collaborations around specific topics, systematic review, contests, mentoring, countless lists of articles that have small or large problems, and so forth.
The fundamental model of Wikipedia is not a failure, it is a success that has been validated countless times — and that’s why we’ve been careful with changes to it. That being said, we do want to become capable of implementing innovative changes and processes that will increase the usefulness of our projects. An example (and the practical implementation is much harder than the basic idea) is a community validation process which allows readers to look at the last version of an article that has received a certain level of shared scrutiny by trusted contributors. Wikipedia is heterogeneous in nature, and making differences in quality more visible to the reader is part of building trust and reliability.
We need your support to develop, test and deploy changes like this. And we will do so carefully and in controlled environments. Ultimately, we hope that Wikipedia will be known not only as the most open and the largest, but also as the most reliable encyclopedia in history.
Erik Möller has been a Wikipedia contributor since 2001, and was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in 2006. This post is a personal opinion, and does not represent an official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:20 am
This is an excellent response to the anti-Wikipedia rants we find all the time.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Wikipedia is a reliable source, but as anyone can go on there and submit a load of crap and have it considered real, it is not the best source for research of any kind.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:25 am
This may be partly true but there are still many articles with immature editors which modify to their own agendas’. Comments such as “product A is better than product B just cause” shouldn’t be allowed when it is obvious it should be left up to the person reading it.
Also, if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously against an encyclopedia then why do they allow so many articles over things like TV commercials and marketing stratergies. There are just some unprofessional like articles that don’t belong and take away the seriousness of the site. I really don’t care to read about a hamburger campaign that some restaurant had for two weeks.
I would still pay for an encyclopedia to have the PROFESSIONALY and unbiased content which is guaranteed to not have a bunch of kiddy stuff in it.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:51 am
my teacher says wikipedia is so horrible and fake. she has no respect for your fake site
December 7th, 2007 at 2:52 am
I’ve told Wikipedia that most of the encyclopedic material on Chinese history is inaccurate or incorrect, and tried to have them correct it but to no avail. And most of the time whenever I go there , they will say I’ve violated their terms, which I didn’t, which I think is unfair.
I think it’s better to use an encyclopedia, and a historian besides the various articles and topics on Wikipedia.
Because it’s inaccurate, incorrect and very often misleading, I use it on a limited basis and I check the information against a reputable online encyclopedia.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:06 am
And what if you selected 50 articles that you could NOT find in traditional language encyclopedias? With what would you compare them? Being better than a traditional text is trivial, however it says nothing for the value of content that may not be common place.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:01 am
I have not found a more comprehensive, complete, and just plain fun website in the world. Despite many accusations of being unreliable, people really do care about quality and accuracy. Each article, wether it be on schitzophrenia or Watergate, is complete and understandable. Keep up the good work!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:14 am
Wikipedia is very inaccurate, with lots of information that are false
December 7th, 2007 at 4:28 am
seeing this was a great relief. my college professors are always saying how wikipedia is unreliable, but i am sending this page to all of them. i love wikipedia, and i think that it is really the most helpful thing since the toaster
December 7th, 2007 at 4:28 am
Take that, skeptical teachers! Every teacher in my district has been trained to automatically discount information found on any wiki, especially Wikipedia, and represent wikis negatively. They don’t know the facts, but a few emails can now change that…
December 7th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Hi guys….. carry on with ur good work. Dont even compare with any other encyclopedias bcoz urs the best. The World knows that. Iam still a student and i dont have any income. I will definetly Donate when iam employed. One suggestion is that.. may be u guys are already working on that….. It will be great if u add some Multimedia or Flash presentations for illustrations just like the websites “Howstuffworks.com”.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Wikipedia is definetly a very wonderfull site … what ever it may be u are searching for ,, its definet that u are going to get the best info abt it Wikipedia .. these days Wikipedia is becoming the first stop for many for knowing anything ..
Wikipedia Really ROCKS . !!!!!!
- Shashi
December 7th, 2007 at 5:28 am
“(Britannica, unsurprisingly, disagreed, and Nature responded once more.)”
The two links point to the same resource.
[Erik Möller: corrected]
December 7th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Umm, is it valid to conflate the German Wikipedia, which I understand has stricter standards, with the English Wikipedia?
Moreover, I would examine any comparison methodology very carefully - I would argue that the infamous “Nature” article (which was NOT subjected to rigorous pre-publication review) used a methodology that would almost inevitably generate a headline about Wikipedia being nearly as accurate as Britannica.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:18 am
why not request an external, objective source to review both Wikipedia, Britannica, the article by Nature, and Britannica’s response? I recognize that Nature was an objective source, but the results show that they were perhaps not accurate enough. And, much of Britannica’s rebuttal statements about inaccuracies were about something written by them, but printed in an encyclopedia. Why they dismiss these I do not know, but I believe they should be included, though perhaps analyzed separately to appease Brittanica.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:22 am
It is most usefull to all the educators & others.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Of course it’s more accurate. It’s global peer review and instant revision. Print media is static and cannot be easily changed if it’s wrong.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:36 am
hi i’m from germany and i think wiki is awesome! i’m in the US for an exchange year and already had some research papers to do for school. i did it together with my host dad and we were looking at wiki in both languages(english,german) and had sometimes some trouble cause the english sites does not have the same informations like the germans. mostly less. just wanna told you that!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Many times the information is not accurate. You can get better information from other websites that you can trust. You can only trust this website some of the time depending on what you are looking for.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Wikipedia is amazing. There is definitely some bias in many of the articles, however, it is a fantastic general resource for obtaining information. It has greatly broadened by horizons.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:46 am
wikipedia is one of the best among the search engines with accurate information. We can also find drilldown info compared to others…
December 7th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Too many people don’t understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be authoritative. It provides an overview and points to more in-depth sources. My wife teaches at a university and must constantly remind her students that Wikipedia is a fine place to start, but not acceptable as a source. The most valuable research tools on any Wikipedia page are the links and sources at the bottom of the page. You should never quote an encyclopedia, written or online, in any research paper anyway.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:04 am
wiki is the one stop for all the information that you need.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:10 am
It’s really good to hear this. Lots of teachers rant on about how incorrect Wikipedia is but Wikipedia has been so helpful. And plus, I’ve seen other sites that has much more wrong info compared to Wikipedia. Keep up the awesome job.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Let’s face it, Wikipedia rules. As a 4th year university student I’ve noticed quite a change in the attitudes of my profs towards citing Wikipedia — now nearly all profs recognize it’s legitimacy for many topics. Keep on rocking!
December 7th, 2007 at 7:13 am
All of the comments to the effect that “anyone can go on there and submit a load of crap and have it considered real, it is not the best source for research of any kind,” ignore the fact that the same riffraff can exist in a print encyclopedia. The difference is that with a print encyclopedia, only those who own or control the means of publication write the text. Thus, print encyclopedias tend to be much more agenda-driven in errors and omissions than Wikipedia, which has more democratic forms of control of content, although of course, neither is Wikipedia perfect in this regard. Errors can also be fixed by anyone who finds them, as opposed to a print encyclopedia, where only the aforementioned owners can make changes, and only if they justify the costs and effort to print a new edition, while old erroneous copies still abound due to the costs of purchasing new copies.
Why do people still say that it is unreliable then? I suspect that it has a basis in the conservative mindset of educational institutions. To have a professor or teacher study for years, only to find a Wikipedia article that disagrees with their research, whether for better or for worse, of course would have a very negative impact on him or her. Add to this the fact that it is the degreeless masses, the “great unwashed”, if you will, that have created the articles and in some cases proven these professors and teachers wrong, that their conceptions they have held for many years might be lacking, and you start to have an idea of why there has been such a backlash against such a fundamentally progressive technological development as a free, open, and online encyclopedia that serves as a global repository of human knowledge.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Hi,
Thankyou so much wikimedia.org
All the best!
Thanks,
Mukesh Prajapti
Seo Optimizer
ashwini.rajoriya@gmail.com
Phone: +91-9413339245
December 7th, 2007 at 7:38 am
While Wikipedia is not intended to be authoritative, it is the first and almost always, the most definitive, point of reference for me and an entire army of knowledge seekers across the world. This review only enhances Wikipedia’s image as a consistent, reliable and comprehensive source of information. What’s more, its electronic form facilitates a lot more research than can be done with paper encyclopediae.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:42 am
What is it about academics that they apparently hate online references? Seems to me that the existence of them does require more research to validate what has been found, but the academic hatred seems to be partly irrational.
As to German scholarship: I think it’s an admirable attribute of German intellectuals that they can, and do have a thoroughness (and rigor, at least attempted!) that can make their references second to none, imho.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:47 am
This is mainly a reply to whoever said it was a negative thing having information about random little things, this is the best bit about the site. I want to know about the paradox of brian the dog from family guy having the experiences and ethics of a middle age man yet only be 8 years old or whatever. And since text takes up only kilobytes of data why not have everything on here, you can’t say ‘i’m not interested in that so it shouldn’t be on here.’ because its not like the stuff thats useless to most ppl detracts from the rest or gets in the way.
Oh, That and all the stuff on simple harmonic motion! As a source for old information thats set in stone like most degree level mathematics wp is invaluable since ya can’t really be inaccurate there.
I wrote this on a phone as well with wifi, the futures here its like bein in minority report or something.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:49 am
If people are such experts on subjects as to find every error that a Wikipedia article has, why don’t they edit the articles?
As for professionalism of content, I think the articles about “frivolous” topics are important and vital to the spirit of Wikipedia. It’s the only place where that information can be easily found.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Wikipedia is to legitimate academic citation as settling a bar bet is to authoring a dissertation.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:04 am
I’m a big user of Wiki for my college work and also use it for various research of whatever comes up that day/week in life. It has become one of my favorite websites, without a doubt.
Of course, the more one uses something, the more one becomes aware of flaws.
One thing I’ve come to realize is that the best way for me to get the most of an entry in a lot of cases is to view not only the article page, but the discussion page as well. A prime example just recently was that of Global Warming, which I went to view to hopefully find a neutral article, but instead found it to be a huge dissertation on only one side of the argument. However, the discussion page provided the angle that I was highly interested in, and that along with other articles (linked from the Global Warming entry, rather than as part of it) helped me come to my own conclusions.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:05 am
People are frequently threatened by new ideas. That’s what’s happened with wikipedia. It won’t be long before they accept that the best way to collect information is by allowing as many helping hands as possible, and people will look back and wonder what the fuss was about. The question isn’t whether every single bit of wikipedia is correct, but whether the information you came looking for is correct. The answer to that is “yes.” When people criticize wikipedia’s reliably, they usually use the “Seigenthaler controversy” (look it up) as evidence. It was a practical joke on a minor page which ended up receiving a lot of media coverage. Since then millions of people a day have been getting the information they were looking for, to the point that wikipedia is now a top ten internet destination. Each wrong fact that creates a stir needs to be weighed against the (100s of?) millions of correct facts that are provided free of charge on the internet by wikipedia. It’s a no-brainer. - ~~~~
December 7th, 2007 at 8:11 am
When doing research, a diligent student or writer must always consult several sources to find accurate and detailed information. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the accuracy of every article. What it can do, thanks to the associative links in its hyperlinked articles, is provide a rich source of starting points for deeper research on almost any subject from the common to highly esoteric.
You can’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia - just as you cannot believe everything you read, as the saying goes, period - but Wikipedia itself gives you the tools to further research the information it provides. This can’t be said of many other reference tools.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
To: All of you who think wikipedia is inaccurate
…If you think you are so knowledgeable why don’t you correct the incorrect entries. Do something constructive and stop whining for a change.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:19 am
I don’t trust 100% in wikipedia; for instance, I search “PPC” and i found a completely diferente meaning. What I want was : “precasted prestressed concrete”…
thanks,
Mafalda Melo
December 7th, 2007 at 8:19 am
omg. thank you. so much. my friend ryan tells me wikipedia is wrong. he says he continuously changes it. and his info stays. but this is a relief!!!
gracias!
December 7th, 2007 at 8:22 am
I’m a heavily published “world expert” in planetary science (100 + peer reviewed papers, book chapters and books), yet when I try and correct or improve Wikipedia entries I have direct knowledge of (best in the world), the changes are quickly removed. Yet new meandering error appears and persists. Punctuation changes often get through. And this is for non-controversial, cut and dry issues.
For subjects that are controversial, such as politics, the entries are often juvenile in their bias and distortion. It is totally futile to correct even gross factual errors.
Wikipedia overall is a waste of time — by those with the most free time and an attitude trying to define/redefine truth. Great study in probing the psychology of the personality types that appoint themselves, little else you can count on. The Nature comparison with Brittanica was outright fabrication and lying, because the journal likes to promote the philosophy of truth defined by consensus, not facts.
Exception: If I need to look up info on a TV show or toy from the 1970’s or 1980’s, or some other similar trivia, it’s a quick comprehensive source. But the more serious the subject, the less reliable the entries. Because they attract people who think they can redefine reality to match their biases.
The self-appointed simply do not or cannot realize how deficient they are.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Davide:
Remember that Wikipedia is not paper, and there’s no penalty to including information that wouldn’t normally go into an encyclopedia. I’ve personally found articles you’d most likely consider “unprofessional” extremely helpful on numerous occasions.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Wikipedia is a ready reference to everything. Its a rare window through which you can see every differrent worlds. Since wikipedia goes through continuous editing based on the comments from readers, I think its credibility is better than many other sources of information.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Yes,almost. But its better to steer clear on most current issues or biographies of living persons. These portions are usually biased and usually in case of biographies appear to be autobiographies.
Also, sometimes the administers play the role of a “moral police” when it comes to editing such entries. Its one thing to prevent vandalism but correcting mistakes and removing inaccuracies is also not well received.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Is there bias or inaccuracy in some of the articles?? Read carefully, such “flaws” can yield insights. Yes, Wikipedia should be read critically. But so should every other encyclopedia.
These days, there’s more to the world than knowing facts; you ought to know have an insight into how both the facts and the “facts” evolved.
Wikipedia is both a good quick reference and a provocative exa-document.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:42 am
“A review by Nature last year that compared Wikipedia with the Encyclopaedia Britannica showed that the number of errors in both encyclopedias was almost equal.”
That is false. The study found that Wikipedia had 33% more errors (2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia).
December 7th, 2007 at 8:50 am
It is dangerous for Wikipedia to claim to be a valid source of information. OF course they are going to make these claims. What is more disturbing is that this generation of LAZY kids is using the site as a source of unquestioned reliability. The reality is that Wikipedia serves as a quick and convenient reference for background material from which to probe the subject matter in depth from references provided on the site. NEVER EVER trust what wikipedia says. You must always verify it.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Wikipedia is a great place to go to for an overview of any topic, situation, historical event, etc. However, *because* the pages are always in flux, and are edited frequently, there is no way to gauge the accuracy of the information on a Wiki page at the time you view it.
For instance: Let’s say Person A created a Wiki page which was 100% factual, accurate, and unbiased. Then, Person B, an agenda-motivated person, came along and skillfully edited the page to support his specific agenda or perspective. Then, a few hours or days later, Person C came along and “corrected” the page to resemble its original, accurate, unbiased statement of facts.
The above is an illustration of a process which could be said to be ensuring accuracy through collaboration. However, if you or I had read the page after Person B’s edits but before Person C’s edits, we would have read a page that appeared factual but had in fact been altered to support one person’s perspective. Moreover, because you or I were probably trusting Wikipedia to be accurate, we might not detect the bias (which could be comprised merely of the omission of certain facts), and we would walk away with misinformation, and an incorrect understanding of the subject.
This is the reason that, although I love and use Wikipedia, I cannot completely trust it.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Wikipedia is as reliable as any other source on internet and vice versa. It is good for beginners or the persons who does not knows anything about a particular topic. It will serve a knowledge base like encyclopedia for him but if he starts going in depths or authentication of the content.he founds the real truth. many times the point up references are not a reliable source at all. Wikipedia is full of quotes that are not from reliable source. moreover it limits the person’s thinking to the content summed up there.
I am a professional SEO & SEM and knows truth about contents of many websites. Beside working i am student and use internet for gathering data for my study as well as research purpose. i have worked for many big names( marketing,HR, people holding key position in governments in different countries and even for reports to presented in UN.
I will tell same thing to any person, as i would to my younger innocent brother, who wants to gain knowledge or collect information must not rely on internet only. same is applicable for wikipedia too.Till now i have worked mostly on USA, Canada, UK, middle east countries and a few from African continent and i would admit that every information on internet is not absolutely correct or rather i should with 100% truth in them.
so i would suggest that use wikipedia and other sources for your work, but don’t depend totally on them . use other ways of gathering information too. If something has been written over internet at probably six or more places does not means that it is true.
It could be a copy of a single source which can correct or incorrect.It is always better to use a certified piece of information than a recent or non-reliable backup source, however popular it be on internet.
All of this is only for researchers or people who weighs the information on ethics of reliability. for beginners or people gathering only general idea about some topic wikipedia or any big popular other source is still a good option.
please forgive this mortal human being, if any of views have hurt anyone’s sentiment. this is only my opinion and you all are intelligent enough to take decisions yourself and forgiving me too.
Regards,
Prasanna
December 7th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Well it may be a bit biased, and not always accurate, and academics may rail against the 1000 petty injustices it commits, lazy students may love it. It is no substitute for real research or reading real in depth research into a topic. But I don’t think it is meant to be is it?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:05 am
This is the first place i look when i am searching for information.
Good work !!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I think wikipedia is worth a glance. I am doing Degree level sciences across physics, chemistry and biology - however, here in the UK, we are NOT ALLOWED to use wikipedia for any information. We are actually marked down for using it, as it is considered an unreliable resource. I’m sure you can understand where this train of thought comes from when anyone can edit anything. It is handy for a quick summary before you delve into the subject head first but in my personal opinion, i’d rather use one of the proper encyclopedias. (Not saying wikipedia is bad, because it isn’t.)
December 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am
it is easy to criticize that which you have not really looked into, just march into any article and just see for yourself by cross referencing and checking the cited sources and maybe even bothering to visit the conversation pages to see that the editors of the major articles are infact (mostly) mature responsible individuals who genuinely care about their work and will produce a fine well written updated article that no printed encyclopedia will be able to compete with.
just like with any open source software the cynical views of most people blinds them to the benefits of having a large community that collaborates for the benefit of the community, its the same arguments over and over: “anyone can change it” “anyone can see the code and hack it” “it cant possibly be true that professionals will do it for free just out of kindness” “it takes thousands of hours and many men to fine tune” “more people use closed source so it must be better” yet as it is for every malicious vandal or hacker there are hundreds of people who will shake their heads and fix it, for every mistake in the code/article there are hundreds of people who happen to know how to fix it. for wikipedia, take the above and multiply by several thousands.
and anyway, any encyclopedia, for any kind of research is to be considered unreliable, personally i use wikipedia as the jumping board to send me in the right direction by following their sources and external links. and from my experience many times the articles i have read ended up being as accurate (rarely more) as printed encyclopedias and also richer, updated, and just more fun to read.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:19 am
i trust wikipedia…..it gives 100% info’s i needed..im a highschool student and i really needed 2 hav this website..thankx wiki!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:19 am
If it’s not broken don’t fix it. Dear Wikipedia, Please stop comparing yourself to traditional encyclopedias. Your in a class of own and I like you just the way you are. Your pal, Mark
December 7th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Wikipedia is a good reference to everything. I could not found any other information bank compared to wikipedia.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Well, i can’t deny.. It did help me a lot!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Wikipedia is a good reference to everything.
so. wiki is best.
best means wikipedia
December 7th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Well, Wikipedia is where i find everything about anything…..
This libarary contains lots of information and that too detailsed. The best part is the readability. the related files are also organised well…
Thanks Wikipedia Team!!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Some articles are accurate. However I have often found information I know for a fact to be false or innacurate in wikipedia articles. Until recently I have tried to correct it, but there are a team of self elected editors who just change it back, delete my changes and then accuse me of inproper use of the site. I’ve given up now. They can take their site and stick it.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:03 am
I’m not giving a penny to Wikipedia. Why? Not because of the openness, but because they ignore lesser historical and personal histories. I had several of my articles deleted because the subjects weren’t prominent enough. Well, I have no desire to contribute to organizations that restrict their collection of information instead of trying to broaden it as much as possible.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
NO U CANNOT TRUST WIKIPEDIA
December 7th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Are you guys insane?! Wikipedia…useless??!
Wikipedia is used by almost everyone I know, and I don’t know about you guys, but my friends and I don’t have encyclopedias at home that carry enough information that we need to make it an efficient tool for us. Being in the Information Era, going online to look for resources, help, and information is commonplace, and what better way to do that than create a website that has information on everything?
For those of you who complain about the “useless junk” on this website, you guys need to know that other people might need info on those “useless junk”, or at least look it up due to curiosity. I am really displeased by the fact that there’s so many of you complaining about the inaccuracy of Wikipedia. With so much information, do you honestly believe that there will be zero mistakes? Not only that, you are given the ability to change those mistakes and make this website more accurate!
Last but not least, being Chinese, I have to say this: IT’S FREE! So don’t be making complains when you too are using Wikipedia to help you on your projects or just to fill your thirst for knowledge.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I havent come across a technical article in past year which is inaccurate.
And i am surprised.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:26 am
ive been using wiki for ages now and the one thing i know for sure is that jus as i would google for something, i’d wiki jus abt anything as well. easy to use, comprehensive in results, and definitely fun to browse n browse for hours soakin up information and knowledge. viva la wiki
December 7th, 2007 at 10:26 am
As far as the articles I’ve looked for so far are concerned, Wikipedia was nothing but a great help & a source of accurate information.
Thank you.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Thats nice but its also whats holding wikipedia back.
* Wikipeida ISNT a better encyclopedia its a better repository of knowledge
Firefox didnt become the number 2 web browser by copying IE
Linux didnt become the chosen OS for webservers/geeks/phones by try and copy windows
Thats why these 2 projects are going places unfortunately at wikipedia i see an increasing case of “an encyclopedia wouldn’t have that” hidden behind “it might be vandalized”.
DO you want to be an OO or a FF?
If enough verifiable content can be written on anything it should be IN not held out by a bunch of nazi admins (see godwin’s law), that’s why this year im withholding my funding! The secret mailing list and comics issue only confirm my doubts in your leadership, on the otherhand thanks to the nature of wikipedia if things get too bad we can always fork. I will happily donate when wikipeida stops trying to be something its not or the current regime is dislodge.
and for all people complaining you cant use FF as a primary source/ that anybody can add rubbish, there’s this little section at the bottom of the page with links to where they go their information. Paper encyclopedia cant do that!
p.s i mean no offense to Open Office its not a bad project but there is no front end innovation.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:33 am
All those people who don’t trust Wikipedia, why not? Its isn’t inaccurate and its never let me down. Also, a personal note to schoolgirl; why just trust your teacher? ALL teachers hate Wiki! Try it out for yourself! also on thing Wii Owner; YOU ROCK!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 10:41 am
This is utter crap. No encyclopedia lacking professional editing can ever hope to be taken seriously. This basic point seems to have escaped one of Wikipedia’s founders but then it is hardly surprising that a former futures trader and erstwhile pornographer is more likely to be swayed by market forces than by scholarly research. Readers of Wikipedia can rest assured that it will continue to cover the minutiae of the Klingon language with the same flair for invention and relentless disregard for common sense that are the work’s hallmarks.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Outstanding, Wikipedia is where i find everything about anything… This is as reliable as any other source on internet and vice versa. It is good for all types of the persons who does not knows anything about a particular topic. I found this library contains lots of information what we want.
Thank you Wikipedia for helping to us without paying any money.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am
thanks wiki.org
it’s my favorite Encyclopedia,and i trust it and i participe to make better some articles ( in frensh and arabic)
Wii Owner!! YOU ROCK!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am
My guess is that a lot of the flak about Wikipedia has to do with MONEY. OF COURSE there is a motive to downplay the value of Wikipedia: knowledge is becoming a business venture; it can be bought and sold. If you want the same information elsewhere, you often have to register with a fee, pay, or subscribe. This is becoming so common that I am advising my students to remove the entire [.com] domain from academic searches.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am
The real excitement is that we can debate this. As a former Home School teacher, I am always interested in the ability of the individual to be heard. My Random House College Dictionary defines expert as “a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field”. Ironically, I came to Wikipedia tonight to research a movie I had just watched: the 1960 version of “Inherit the Wind”. It tells a story of a courtroom battle between supporters of either creationism or evolution. One side holds up Darwin’s book of evolution. The other side holds up the Bible. Only the bible is accepted as reliable in this particular trial though. Experts debate. We are entertained by the rigidity of expert opinion, at least an expert we don’t agree with. Surely the myth of experts always being right is long exposed. The thought of individual opinion as being more right than data gathered by experts in the field is also an idea written on holey cloth. As usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Thank you Wikipedia for developing and refining a method of information gathering that includes both expert and inpert sources, peer review, a generous view of what we might be interested in, links onward rather than elitist finality, humor and just the joy of knowing more today than yesterday.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:15 am
our entire school staff don’t trust wikipedia because they say that people from all over the world can edit articles or make up one, i have not seen 1 article that has don’t look right, my point is that you should trust wikipedia
December 7th, 2007 at 11:21 am
“And a 2004 systematic comparison of German Wikipedia articles with those in two other encyclopedias also found Wikipedia to be accurate and comprehensive” - The same magazine (c’t) ran another systematic comparison in 2007 of Wikipedia, Brockhaus, Encarta and Bertelsmann Enzyklopädie and stated: “We did not find more errors in the texts of the free encyclopedia than in those of its commercial competitors” (”Wir haben in den Texten der freien Enzyklopädie nicht mehr Fehler gefunden als in denen der kommerziellen Konkurrenz”).
http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ct/2007/6/136_Digitale-Enzyklopaedien-erklaeren-die-Welt
December 7th, 2007 at 11:24 am
It is somewhat reliable and provides useful information on a range of topics, however the fact that it can be edited by just about anyone is a major factor that decreases any reassurance that you’re getting solid facts that are 100% correct. Nonetheless, any edited pages are in fact checked and any useless or incorrect information is often disposed off.
Top Notch!
December 7th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I think Wikipedia is a great site. As long as people realise that it unedited and so content can be unreliable, whats the problem? It is often a quick and efficient way of finding information online, and its free. I cannot understand people that dislike wiki because they think it isn’t as professional as other encyclopedias..it isn’t trying to be! It is simply an open vault of knowledge that anyone can add to. You may find it interesting that in certain A-levels (biology, chemistry etc) wikipedia is not aknowledged as a reference by certain examining bodies anymore, for obvious reasons.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:43 am
The main problem with Wikipedia is not the content. The reliability of this varies widely and providing you take it with a pinch of salt it remains a usefull first referance before diggingg deeper into other sources.
The main problem with Wikipedia is the increasing levels of control and decreasing transparency around the editing process where individuals within the Wikipedia hierarchy excercise their power to ban editors or remove edits at will without oversight or accountability.
Take a look at two recent episodes :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
*Note* I’ve linked both from the same site because it was convienient. Both cases were widely reported by a variety of online media sources. Google for the subject wording for more reports.
Both cases where overzealous editors have abused their power for personal reasons and not in the best interests of Wikipedia or it’s users.
Senior memebers of the Wikipedia organization are systematically controlling the information that is available, not on the basis of factual accuracy or relevance but because they have a personal agenda to promote.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:51 am
its a bit like the prisoner’s dilemma isnt it… except that there are millions of prisoners now.. if everyone works together, and corrects all the mistakes they find, u get a very comprehensive well of information. if you find an error, correct it. then *poof* no more error =) its like a huge survival of the fittest game.. the most accurate articles stay alive, and the errors die out when they are found. as with any evolving process, there are bound to be errors. but in the long run, the errors will be gradually corrected, the articles refined, and the links expanded. if you believe in evolution, surely you can see the potential of a system like this.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am
In Wikipedia I trust.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am
in all honesty the entire thing comes under internet authenticity, u can only be as confident of a source as u can be of the author and if u are sifting through a site which is host to thousands of changes, adaptions, deletions and plain vandalism then you can see where there is a problem. don’t get me wrong i love Wikipedia, i just understand why for academic reasons its not quite as full proof, if you see my point.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:54 am
As any object of power, used responsibly it is indeed powerful. The problem is not the object itself.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Hey ppl,
Wikipedia is great, there is no doubt abt that. There is great effort involved in bringing a system like wikipedia,which is visible. However, I personaly believe that ppl use wikipedia to get there links submitted on search engines which is itself a significant thing. There is no doubt that wikipedia is full of informations which ppl keep moderating. Wikipedia need to take ownership of getting the junk out at the earliest to keep that faith flowing.
Regards,
December 7th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Wikipedia is a nice attempt to rule the human knowledge world which, in its essence, cannot be ruled anyway, so I foresee that Wikipedia will be soon obsolete and useless.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Snob people are all around who automatically declare such things as bad. I talked to a software engineer who was strongly against Wikipedia, Linux, and all such projects. He said things like “Linux is for nerds”, and “free software poisons the software market”. He was the type who does his best to emphasize his knowledge, but when I asked a question about C++, he could not answer. Eventually most is his advice turned out to be wrong.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
to detractors of wikipedia:
in my experience site errors do not remain on pages for very long, blatant errors even less.
anyone in disbelief can register, log in and test this out by altering a random page and remarking on how quickly the misinformation is reconfigured and the handle used to deface the database is restricted.
and check the cited resources at the bottom of a page. those are real live books and media listed there!
December 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
If you can find a better online encyclopedia at a lower price, buy it.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Wikipedia is what ask.com was originally supposed to be: a site where you can go to find *information about* a topic, rather than just *a website realated to* a topic. (A few months after it’s creation ask.com changed to just be another search engine centered around making money.)
Nonprofits are far more effective at accomplishing their missions, simply because for-profit organizations really have a goal of making money as #1, and serving their stated purpose as #2. (As an example, take Wal*Mart, which is supposedly about delivering goods at the lowest prices by removing the distributor from the consumer product lifecycle. In the book “The Wal*Mart Effect” (Sorry, I don’t know the author), there is a reference to a study that found that due to factors such as long checkout wait times, lack of customer service, inferior product quality, excessive walking distance both in-store and in the lot, additional gas required to drive to the store, etc. that the products don’t really cost the consumer any less than shopping at a smaller store with slightly higher prices and effective staff. Please don’t take my word on this, read the book for yourself, and research the study too!)
That said, Wikipedia is now the first place I go when I want to find information about something, rather than be slapped with ads about it. If I’m doing a report or something, of course I’m going to take the time and effort to verify my findings, just as I would with a paper encyclopedia (they always have a bibliography). However the fact is I usually just want to educate myself, in which case even an article that’s only 75% accurate (which I’m sure you’d be hard-pressed to find on WP) and heavily biased will still suit my purpose.
I have come across a few articles that appeared to be written by a single author, but even then I’m not the first one to discover that - the articles have already been tagged with a warning and a request to have more authors improve the article. I reccommend to anyone examining Wikipedia, whether critically, complementary, or neutral, to begin by reading WP’s introductory texts, like “What Wikipedia Is,” “What Wikipedia Is Not,” “The Pillars Of Wikipedia,” “How To Write A Good Article,” etc. This makes it easy, for example, to spot a poorly-referenced article before you read past the opening paragraph.
Also, when looking at an article, in addition to the article’s discussion page, it can be quite useful to review its revision history, to get an idea of how often it’s edited, how many different people contribute to it and which of those maintain it (as opposed to ones who make one edit and leave), and any recent major changes that might indicate an uncorrected error. Most of the time, an edit labeled Revert to Version X by Author Y is representative of a version that the majority agrees is correct. Learning how to use Wikipedia properly is the key to gaining the most out of it.
Dan Henderson
Independent Associate
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
danhenderson@prepaidlegal.com
http://danh.timefreedomtoday.com/
December 7th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Really, I dont know and dont care what people says or think about wikipedia.
Whenever:
> my boss comes up with a new reprimanding word or
> my girlfriend comes up with something “Sexy” which I never understood or
> my techy friends write to me in very technical words
Or even when I feel emotional or horny with words like “D-Day” or “Bombay Roll”, “Pearl Necklace” etc or just out of curiosity tend to understand what is “Whitney” or “Devils Foot” or who is “Al Capone” etc etc…
What I know is just type www.wikipedia.com fill in the word, click on “Go” and Bingo!!! I’ve all the necessary information I need. Thanks to all of you behind the web page. Just keep adding and rocking…
December 7th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Please change “There’s dozens more like it” in paragraph 2 to “There are dozens more like it.” In an article about accuracy, the grammatical error is a little ironic!
December 7th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
wikipedia is the most comprehensive wealth of information I have ever utilized for daily quick references. Being able to HYPERLINK into another article for a ‘tree branch’ effect to get deeper understanding of the topic is OUTSTANDING. My only concern is that once in a while I will read something perverse, like swearing from obviously an idiot who changed the article, SO MY SUGGESTION is that WIKIPEDIA PUTS A BUTTON AT TOP OF ARTICLE THAT WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE ‘BUSTED’ OR ‘WARNING’ THAT SOMEONE WHO IS IN CHARGE OF CONTENT (even if it is peer reviewers; if people signed up as a peer reviewer and got perks from some advertisers? there would be more motivation for scrutinizing ANY ARTICLE that SOMEONE ALERTED them that this article is NEEDING editing A.S.A.P………
in other words, as a casual user of Wikepedia, I do not have time or feel comfortable with going into that article to erase swearing or change innacurate content…. email me if anyone wants to educate me about this possibility and maybe I would make time to help; I am a private clinical social worker working with kids / families to improve their lives, so psychology, social work, youth issues, are my expertise….
December 7th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I believe that yeah there are some articles that aren’t accurate but imagine, over time this website will eventually have accurate content. More people need to edit if they see something wrong.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I really like using wikipedia but sometimes, there’s informations hard to believe.
Sometimes, people writes thing that really doesn’t matter.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
i can definetly trust wikipedia. it is the place i go to whenever i have a report to do for school. it helps a lot because it always has everything i need. it has the best information and more then any other website. i hope it stays around for my kids to use when they are in school.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Yes i am also trust wikipedia
i like very much wikipedia its very nice and
reading to easy and also understanding also easy
this way i like very very very very much wikipedia
yours
chandu
December 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Sanjeeb’s observation is a good summary…. Whatever the phrase or definition, type it in and get a wealth of information. It is fantastic.
A researcher knows he need more than one source and will look for confirming/validating sources. Welcome to the world of preparing professional opinions. But a quick jump into the meat of a subject is really REALLY helpful. Well done… and keep it going…
December 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
this is chandu wikipedia it will give more information to me and others
and it will give a BIO-DATA for peoples,places,games and also so many ideas it will give
to me and peoples so this way i like so much
yours
chandu
doddaballapur
bangalore (dist)
December 7th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I use wikipedia quite a bit, and have found most of the information to be very accurate. However there is one matter that it is still very prone to (not that other sources aren’t either), which is a bias based on the editors. Coming from a Christian perspective I have had many people on wikipedia “yell” at me, and remove factual information that pertains to a viewpoint that is different then theirs from entries i have edited. Because of this i could never financial support wikipedia.
Some examples listed:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567917
December 7th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I found it interesting that some people believe that being “professional” means the people involved in any human process are less biased.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Fully agree with Majic.
“If you can find a better online encyclopedia at a lower price, buy it.”
December 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Something to show my lecturer the next time he starts on his rant of ‘Asking Wikipedia is like asking the village idiot’
December 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Whatever people say, Wikipedea will always be my first stop for research on any subject. The fact that some historical articles are updated by individuals who might have been there, or are from the communities where the events took place makes it a cut above the rest. Add in the fact that review is open to anyone of any interest whatsoever, and you have the best, most reliable and accessible source of information.
Keep up the good work guys
December 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Look at all the Negative responses…
I dunno about the rest, but wikipedia has done just fine for me.
If I could I would rate it 100/10. That equals 10… get it 100 divided by 10 = 10, and ten usually resembles an excellent score. 10/10.
=O)
Well Wikipedia is very good.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
overvall wiki is good standard of encyclopedia its just there is a lot of biased views. the articles people publish should be checked against reliable sources before published for the public reader. e.g. when i types in a name of a game on google, i read the wiki version of it. it was clearly from someones point of view. they were denoucing it and making fun of it without telling you much about it
December 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
As a high school English teacher, I often give out reaseach papers. It pains me that my colleagues do not feel that Wikipedia is reliable enough for my students to utilized. I at least tell my students to use Wikipedia as a jumping point from which they can get great ideas for their papers. I personally use Wikipedia almost every day.
Keep it up!
-Mrs. Surratt, Pulaski County High School
December 7th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Its not the matter of trust but what matters me a lot is the information about any subjects.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Wikipedia and all its “child” sites are very useful for me and i trust on it a lot. Although it’s not the best site for scientific research (unless you don’t mind to not put it on the bibliography) because of the supposed lack of scientific background of all the contributors, lately i have even grab information and material for my university projects and tests.
All i have to say is thank you for sharing knowledge and contribute by posting all those things to the site. Wikipedia made me believe again on the power of the sharing good and useful knowledge for the people who wants it.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
As an academian and a scholar, I can say that Wikipedia is a useful tool. The question of reliability is trivial for two reasons: one, all information on this website should be cited. It should be used, therefore, like an abstraction from which the proper paths towards “academically recognized” information can be acquired (notice I did not say “real information.” This brings me to my next point…). Secondly, I find it hard to believe that a website, edited by its users –some of whom are highly regarded in their fields– is *necessarily* any less reliable than any other reference source. Are we not beyond petty debates over what is objective information at this point? Simply the fact that a text has passed made its way through the publication process does not make it infallible or clear of bias and opinion.
In this sense, I feel Wikipedia is highly revolutionary in questioning the widely believed concept that the only ones capable of challenging the sources are the very stuffy academians who create and perpetuate it (as a stuffy academian myself, I feel I am qualified to make this judgment). By using Wikipedia, anyone can engage in the dialectic creation of knowledge. Indeed, this is as it must be, for knowledge must serve the people and the people must serve knowledge. What is today “unreliable,” may tomorrow be called truth. Is then, the prestige of the source worth questioning if the information therein is nonetheless valid?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I also find Wikipedia a very valuable source of information on any topic I can find in here, which is almost all. Actually, I do not even need as much information that is provided.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Some people say that they have not found inaccurate or incorrect content when searching on wikipedia.
But, when you are looking for something you known nothing about, you are not able to distinguish true and false information.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I find this debate fundamentally amusing. On the one side are people claiming that Wikipedia is a fantastic, trustworthy source of information that should be acceptable for academic citation. A quick scan of the foregoing comments will demonstrate that those same people usually have a poor grasp of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and apparently of the nature of academic study. I don’t expect these individuals to be contributing much to scholarly debate.
On the other end of the debate are individuals claiming that Wikipedia is a horrible, baseless, unreliable source of information. Again, a quick scan will reveal a similar lack of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and understanding of the nature of academic study. And, also again, I don’t expect these people to be contributing much to scholarly debate.
Somewhere in the middle are those who claim that Wikipedia is what it is, and should be taken with a grain of salt, just like every other resource. These are the people with most of their i’s dotted and their t’s crossed, and they also happen to be most of the self-avowed academics.
This is the reason that Wikipedia can never be accepted as an academic resource–at least not as such (I’ll get to this). Academic study relies upon the ability to verify what has been written, and to verify sources. A standard encyclopedia can be cross-referenced and then noted as being incorrect; retractions and corrections are published on the internet and in bound volumes, and changes in information and perspective are readily apparent between editions. A a teacher, if I see an encyclopedia referenced in a student paper I can go and check that information and be certain that what my student saw yesterday is what I will see today–even if it is incorrect. With Wikipedia, information can change between those two times, and I am forced to conclude that my student is either fabricating information (and hence has violated fundamental ethics and deserves to fail) or that the site has been changed–allowing students to fabricate information without consequence. Wikipedia is inherently UNRELIABLE as a reference (i.e., you can not rely upon it to say any given thing at any given time), just like everything else on the internet. Accuracy and completeness are different gauges, but in those aspects Wikipedia is also unreliable in the true sense of the word.
(This is not academic conjecture. I once had a student who wrote a paper about country line dancing based information he found on Wikipedia. It was not there when I checked his sources, but two days later it was. I have no way of knowing if he fabricated the source or not, but luckily for him I have a book which suggests the exact same “facts.” Either way it was grossly incorrect, and I cited him for faulty research, but at least he wasn’t failed automatically!)
All that said, Wikipedia is a merry playground for folklorists, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists. These are academic disciplines which thrive on material which is constantly changing, and actually examine that material. Wikipedia is a perfect expression of folk identity and worldview. As a subject for study, or a place to get a bead on what people are interested in, it simply can’t be beat. It is a folk encyclopedia in the greatest sense, and can be used as such, but only as a starting point or in contexts which do not require validation through academic peer review.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Wikipedia is nothing less than a revolution in information distribution, not some hoax soon to be exposed. It has the capacity to be incomparably better then any encyklopedia, since the amount of information it can hold and the amount of working hours that can be spent on improving it are incomparably greater than that of any paper encyklopedia. Man is generally afraid of the unknown, and anything may seem intimidating and frightening to someone who hasnt goten to know it. In reality, the fear of wikipedia is without any good reason. Wikipedia is here to stay.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Yeah yeah..I’ll donate to wikipedia so that you can put more false stats about so-called “Armenian Genocide”.Except this it’s the best source that you can find on the internet..I mean keep working but not with the “Armenian Lobby”
December 7th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
While it may be a good site for a first-stop, quick information you’d have to be very careful to rely on it. Just checked an article about atopic I am familiar with and am horrified about the misuse of terms, muddling of information and biases on the site (CANopen, 7/12/2007). Sorry folks, but there’s a lot of plain wrong stuff in there.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
It pains me that my colleagues do not feel that Wikipedia is reliable enough for my students to utilized =O) Wikpedia is well gd
December 7th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
[…] this weeks Stern Magazine Wikipedia is put to the test. Is it as accurate as they […]
December 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Wikipedia is an excellent source of information. It has information on it that is nearly impossible to find anywhere else. Multiply studies has found the accuracy to be similar to traditional encyclopedias. I have an MS in engineering and have gotten allot of info from wikipedia. From my background i’ve seen about 95% of the info correct. If noticed a trend that when ‘experts’ edit a page, the info tends to stick, and if not overwritten by less knowledgeable peoples mis-information. This make article remain accurate once they are actuate. I have also noticed that the admins have gotten self richious and do tend to remove input without a decent investigation. This is a pitty. But it is an amazing resource, and i contribute all the time
As for sources for research papers and publications. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. You want references to be as close to the primary source as possible. Wikipedia is pretty far up the ladder, and so are all encyclopedias. The difference is Wikipedia links to its sources. So you know were the info came from. You cite these in you reports, and papers.
Wikipedia User:ZyMOS
December 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Of course, I can trust wikipedia becouse I get very useful informatiom almost everyday.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Wikipedia is completely and totally reliable.It’s just that idiots on the internet post untrue and retarded crap over the real info, that’s all. Apart from that, it’s a great source to find all-around information.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“pushed ever closer to an ideal summary of a topic”
Are we really approaching an “ideal” summary (if there is really such a thing) or are we merely reducing our understanding of topics to a “lowest common denominator”?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Well it seemed liked a cool idea at first-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
Are you guys taking bribes or something? Why are you trying to prevent people from having all the information?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
It’s true that because Wikipedia is editable by anyone, you never know what someone’s going to put there. But if you click on the different tabs at the top of an article you’ll see what’s happened with the editing process and most of the times (at least the ones I’ve looked at) you’ll see biased information and opinions being removed and things like that. I personally think it’s a great source of information and use it on a daily basis.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Wikipedia is a full of crap and a waste of anyones time. Nothing printed on here is factual.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Whenever I want any information,I first look at Wikipedia.I get all information I want.Wikipedia is great
December 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
This is truly a blow to those sites that claim the unreliability of Wikipedia is causing inaccuracies on the internet. The only reasons for these ‘inaccuracies’ is some juvenile pranksters that think the only purpose of the internet is for their own amusement.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
” Wikipedia, Where Education has no Conditions or Boundaries.”
A best site where I can find everything without any conditions. When Education is matter of money in modern world, Wikipedia has done a better job of providing it free. My sincere thanks to all Wikipedia staff and Donors for their priceless service………
December 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
wikipedia so awesome i have learned alot of new things every single day i just love this website it is genius this is like the ultimate website to go to for anything like for example homework, projects,reports, or just for fun and learning!! this website is totally reliable!!!:-0 OMG i have a report dueon the 14 of December 2007 Wikipedia to the rescue!!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
i don’t trust it at all!!
i can’t edit anything
:X
December 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
wiki is so unusfull to my students i would not recomend this site for reaserch purposes at all.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
maybe statistically most articles are correct, but what does that say about that one article you are reading? -> nothing!
Wikipedia is usefull if you’re wandering about something purely out of intrest and with no further means of using the information,
but comparing wikipedia with actual encyclopedias is just plain WRONG!
If there is one thing I learned about researching then it’s that you need to check the reliability of your source, at wikipedia that source could be anyone who feels like writing down something -> not reliable!
also I woulkd want to reply on the previous post:
# Pandita W. Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Wikipedia is completely and totally reliable.It’s just that idiots on the internet post untrue and retarded crap over the real info, that’s all. Apart from that, it’s a great source to find all-around information.
I would change that to:
Wikipedia is completely and totally NOT reliable.BECAUSE idiots on the internet post untrue and retarded crap over the real info, that’s all. Apart from that, it’s a great source to find all-around information.
much better
so everyone who believes this crap should basicly learn about statistics!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
no because you can edit the pages
December 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
@Neal,
Thank you for saying 3/4 of what I was planning on saying. I will add a few things however. Wikipedia is also good for fields where things are mostly “settled” such as mathematics. I attend the University of South Carolina, and I’ve had many of my math professors speak highly of Wikipedia. There’s simply no controvery in math (except, perhaps for *very* new theories, but I’ll own up to my ignorance in that area)
I should also add, that as an avid wikipedia user, I’ve quickly learned to distinguish when an article (or section of an article) is one I feel I should trust. Namely, when an article has numerous spelling and grammatical errors I tend to doubt its accuracy. This is a relevant skill for internet use in general, and you demonstrated it in your analysis of the comments on this page. For this reason, Wikipeida *may* seem more accurate to me than it is, because I can instantly ignore information that is suspicious.
And to those of you who have said, “I’m the best in the world in this field, but people keep removing my entries and accuse me of violation the terms of the site.” Could those terms be the requirement for citations? If you are, in fact, who you say you are there’s a *very* easy solution. All you have to do is cite one of your papers from a scholarly journal (or a text book, or *any place* your position is written down). Remember Wikipedia accepts citations that aren’t websites. But you shouldn’t expect an anonymous web site to trust you are who you say you are. If that’s what you want, go take a look at Citizendium.
As has been said before, Wikipedia is a great place to start but you shouldn’t cite it for logisitical reasons. But you shouldn’t *need* to site it either…hmm I wonder if there’s a page on “how to use wikipedia for academic research” If there’s not, maybe I should make one.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
this is the best encyclopedia in the world!!! maybe there are some wrong articles but only 5% of all the articles…
Its the best, and it is 100% easier to find solid and true information than in other websites!!
good job wiki!!!!
xxx
December 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Plain and simple. It should be used by people who need a quick bit of information. If they need more information or intend to use it in professional settings they need primary sources. Granted wikipedia is not infallible, but the same can be said about encylopedia. At least wikipedia is free and has primary sources available nearby.
And if there aren’t any primary sources usually someone brings it up.
But since wikipedia isn’t a 15 volume very heavy series of books and doesn’t cost money, I use it as my first place to get quick information. If I still don’t get it I go elsewhere.
If I’m writing a paper for academia related things, I don’t even start with wikipedia and I don’t think anyone who is in academia would so either. None the less it’s a great resource for students who have an information gap and need a relatively brief explanation with references.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Wikipedia can be quite convenient, if used with critical awareness: having a general idea on a topic but wanting specific reminders or blanks filled in, & able to sniff where something is wrong.
But, when trying to update areas where old saws & weary nostrums had been shoveled in, I ran up against a species of Wikipedia gnome that seemed to have nothing better to do than to resist scholarly expertise. Happily their buzz subsided after a bit & the updates survived. But their self-important amateurishness peeved.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
The best information source website.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
People must realize that people decide what ‘data’ is relevant and what history is accurate. Wikipedia *is* attempting to consolidate ALL of the world’s data. No easy task. But again, all of this is driven by people — we make mistakes, and sure, sometimes we have an agenda; but ultimately *we* can help make this endeavor positive and with beneficial impact.
My 2 cents are: You can’t please everyone all the time.
-Sx-
December 7th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Wikipedia is actually quite good.
but as people really think, it may be both good
and bad place for information.
if you wish to find old information I would recomend
your local library or your head library.
if you want to find new information. and almost anything
about computer/digital information. then I can recomend
Wikipedia. Wikipedia is mostly digital information that is
freely changeable. but it is also one of the fastest sources
of information for the most people.
People looking for history about their country or something very important
use the books. but if ur looking for information about something digital. then sure
come in and look, you will most likely find it accurate
December 7th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
It’s just one more option outhere to compare your results!
Chill out guys! But I really hope its reputation keeps growing
’cause I really like it and it has been helpful!
December 7th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
No encyclopedia is reliable enough for citing in a research project. Many college professors reject using *any* encyclopedia for research work. Encyclopedia can be used only for occasional references for which Wikipedia is way too better than any other encyclopedia on Earth… The only problem I think is that, there are too few Featured and GA articles compared to the total number of articles and that quality of articles vary widely. That’s an article on one country would be a featured article where as another country would be a “stub”. We need more featured and GA articles (atleast 50,000 in total) so that there is a balance. This would also help “Wikipedia on DVD” project to face Britannica or Encarta head on in the offline encyclopedia media.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
wikipedia.org is the best site for all… I jus like it!!!!!!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I have used wikipedia countless times and have always went to other sources to verify it. I wouldn’t use everything on a site, because it can be edited by so many people. I think Wikipedia is a great source for information, however verifing the information is a much better choice.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
WE LOVE WIKIPEDIA! WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAA
1111111111111
December 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
For all of this talk pro & con about the reliability of Wikipedia by people who claim to be concerned about getting the details correct, I’m surprised no one has yet pointed out one error in Erik’s original article: the _Nature_ comparison was published in 15 December, 2005, not “last year”.
As for errors in various Wikipedia articles, if you find your corrections reverted, explain your concerns on the Talk page — or at least state which articles in your rant. There are a number veteran Wikipedians who care about accuracy who will look into such matters.
Geoff
December 7th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Wikipedia is a fun read. Honestly, no reference site or encyclopedia should be used alone to provide authoratative knowledge. Rather, a group of reference materials should be used to gain understanding of the subject of interest from different perspectives. I believe this site is accurate enough to provide certain facets of factual information, although it is proper to warn readers that this is not the authority on all knowledge at the same time. Take with you what you can use, and leave the rest.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Wikipedia is full of false information and lies, has more holes than swiss cheese!
December 7th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
you can not trust them. kids can get on and change things.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Hello. I wish Wikipedia all the best - and hope someday they will have proper monitoring and verification of the “facts” on their site. Until then, I wish they would at least cross reference what is being posted against what we have clearly stated on my website: www.yusufestes.com
My own personal experience with Wikipedia has not been good. My name is being associated with non-existant organizations and groups that I have never even heard of.
There is no group called “Muslim Foundation International” and even if there was, I don’t even like the sound of the name.
Anyone could go to my website and see they are not really taking the information from the sources online. They just make up whatever they like.
This has been really hard on me and has damaged my relationship with some Muslim groups and ruined my reputation in some universities where I used to speak.
While none of the allegations have an substance or even remotely close to the truth, I find myself at a loss on what to do to eliminate this problem.
Sorry if I have offended anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
why doesnt wikepidia make it so that no one can edit it except for the people who made the website so that its right and people will actually use it?????????????
December 7th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I’ve been an avid Wikipedia-addict since 2001 and it has been a glorious association. I wouldn’t dare to imagine a world without Wikipedia and shudder to think what would happen to ignoramuses like me if this very concept didn’t take fruit.
All those who decry Wikipedia are nothing but disgraceful losers; all these ill-informed critics can go take a walk while millions of people like me enjoy enlightenment on a daily basis. Naysayers be damned!
December 7th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
As a high school teacher who often assigns research projects, I describe wikipedia as a tool/abstract/portal. It is an excellent resource for becoming familiar with a topic (abstract), and if an article is done right, it will link you to more trustworthy sources of information where you can really dive into your subject (portal). However, due to the lack of a requirement of authors’ to identify themselves and their credentials, it in and of itself will never be a suitable source in my class.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Wikipedia has saved me countless times, despite the ability for users to post false articles. Though, yes, most of the information on the site you may never be interested in, it doesn’t mean that you have to read them! Assessing an article’s validity is left to the user, as it should be: look for articles that site primary resources, then go to the primary resources to check! Articles marked as being suspect should be taken with a grain of salt, as well. Any misinformation the reader takes from wikipedia is the responsibility of the reader himself, in this way. Go wikipedia!
December 7th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
It seems The Register disagrees.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
Happy reading
December 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
i can not trust this webpage because you allow people to come and edit this site and we do research projects in school and without real information we can not learn the right thind about our topic and we wont get the grade we deserve so that is why i do not trust this web page
December 7th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
NO WE CAN NOT TRUST THIS.WEBSITE
December 7th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I use Wikipedia daily for information on a variety of subjects. I also often refer to a number of articles from various sources when researching a topic. I find that Wikipedia is usually just as accurate and informative as any of the other sources I search through and, in many cases, considerably more accurate and informative. Thank you for building a platform that dramatically increases the world’s ability to be informed.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
WIKIPEDIA IS BEST WAY TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT DIFERENT KIND OF TOPIC, SO I AM VERY GRATEFULLY WITH YOURS WEBSITE AND I CAN TRUST IN WIKIPEDIA .
THANKS A LOT WIKIPEDIA.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
this website rocks u can find wat ever u need here!!!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Wiki is terrific. If all these negative people would only use common sense to see the obvious false articles, which there really aren’t that many of, then this website would be of the most useful ever. I love this website and will use it regardless of all the silly wiki-haters out there.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Wikipedia is a good website but some bad a people post a bad a things which makes it a untrue.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I think people should make an attempt to understand what Wikipedia’s strengths and weaknesses are, and how it functions. I think it would make it difficult to dismiss it.
What Wikipedia may lack in accuracy and clarity, it more than makes up for in terms of currency, accessibility, depth and price. Somebody researching a topic would be well advised to consult it, and with its links to other research information, well-advised to consult it first.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan
What is it?
Where s kurdistan ?
this is funny and wrong
Can You Trust Wikipedia? NOO
December 7th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Re: Mafalda Melo’s search for “precasted prestressed concrete”
It’s “precast prestressed concrete”, you can find information in Wikipedia in English and Japanese. Not much information is there, but there are links to five external sites. If someone has the interest, this use of the term PPC could be added to the PPC disambiguation page.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
i havent use this wikimedia for really long (about half year or so), i heard it from my friends. what i feel about this is: yes, sometimes it feels a little unsafe if the article can be upload by ANYONE in the world. and i did find something maybe not correct. but still, it is really helpful in most of the cases. you can almost find anything you want to know from it. of course, if you are not looking for a simply explanation, if you are doing a serious research, i do recommend you to check other information source after getting a general impression from here.
overall, what i want to say is, wikimedia is trustble and useful and fast if you are just looking for a simple and general answer to something. but it is not right to take this as your only reference if you are doing a serious research work.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
A comment was submitted (by a teacher, I summised) “A standard (bound/hard copy/published) encyclopedia can be cross-referenced and then noted as being incorrect; retractions and corrections are published on the internet and in bound volumes, and changes in information and perspective are readily apparent between editions.”
Wikipedia can boast a better level of cross-reference, checking, annotation and discussion, and all the notated citations, references, editorial comments and discussions are updated at the bottom or top of the articles on the same internet page and are “real-time”. What this means for the common academic or man on the street is you don’t have to go to another website to find this vital information, or wait for a bound volume to come out citing updated or corrected cross references or reference indexing.
Undoubtedly the day any such supplemental bound reference update index is published, it becomes obsolete (????) not to mention the amount of tree it took to put it out en-masse. Therefore the observation is as clear as the hand in front of my face, and I am weighing in on the side of Wikipedia being MORE reliable than whatever version or date of hard bound published encyclopedia a student may be using for reference.
Go in any public or school library or home, and find that most encyclopedias (mostly due to budgetary restrictions in procuring the latest and maintaining staff to maintain the updates!) on the shelves are woefully out of date, and hardly ever would they include the supplemental bound issues of annotation, indexing, cross reference or updates (unless of course you are in a well maintained scientific or corporate law library).
My summation is that Wikipedia, for the common academic student or simple man on the street looking something up out of curiousity SHOULD BE considered THE MOST reliable and up to date encyclopedia for research and reference, for that segment of the population.
This argument is near to the arguments put forth against the motor car replacing the horse.
The concept of WIKI should be applied to all encyclopedias worldwide, not just common academia, stop killing the trees people!
It’s called “progress” and “innovation”, get on board!!!!
GC/Sugar Land TX
December 7th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Obviously, there is always the chance that the LAST edit to an article you are reading was by a vandal, or by someone with an agenda. I think that, over time, these things seem to get corrected, so probably the best thing to do is check the article more than once, and also check the page history. If you’re looking at an article that seems to be in constant flux, look at the recent versions. But certainly, check other sources. Wikipedia can have mistakes — I got my start as a Wikipedian by correcting mistakes I saw! — but the traditional print encyclopedias have them too.
Editions of Americana still had articles that referred to the Soviet Union as if it were still in place 10 years after the end of the Soviet Union. Editions of Britannica had similar anachronisms when I consulted them. Wikipedia is up-to-date; that is one of its pluses. It has articles on many things that don’t make it into the print encyclopedias; that is its other big plus (though, sadly, “notability” arguments have caused some of these to have been deleted!)
My thought is that Wikipedia is good, but not perfect. Britannica is also good, but not perfect. Ise all the resources you can find! Don’t restrict yourself to one!
December 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I would not say about the reliability of everything, but one thing that we should all understand is, that whenever freedom is given, the chances of malpractice degrade substantially.
Had wiki been a locked site, or not so free, people would have tried to hack it, change it… but since it it so easy, there is no challenge for people like that, and so most of the times, we get correct information.
At least, in my case I trust the stuff in wiki and I read everything from here…
December 7th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
i don’t trust wikipedia - several articles have large errors and others are incomplete. my husband corrected an error about the population of a place (using information directly from the census) the person who made the error corrected his correction, so the error remained. I think I will stick to more reliable sources.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
There will be no such thing as a totally reliable and objective information source, as long as people are involved.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
the date of birth of Barry Goldwater in in correct. His birthday is Jan 1-1909 PLEASE CORRECT
December 7th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Our schools do a grave disservice when they discount Wikipedia out of hand. It is an excellent way to begin research on a topic - and it is the inevitable model for knowledge management in the future. Instead of ignoring it, teachers should be introducing students to its breathtaking power, *as well as* its potential weaknesses and the responsibility that comes with using it as a resource. The key is to understand the model and to apply verification activities consistent with the use of the information.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
In the fabled words of Ronald Reagan.. “Trust, but verify.” I do not blindly believe everything I read on Wikipedia. No one uses only one source for research, and Wikipedia can be ONE Of the sources. I find it quite reliable, though not infallibly so. It is most enlightening to read the behind-the-scenes back-and-forth interaction regarding the content and editing of a particular article to see HOW decisions are made, and what the various pro and con arguments are. That said, there is no other place to find a comprehensive discussion of a topic that may not be included in any other encyclopedia, and the immediacy of updates is amazing.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
In high school for my IB History HL, our teacher said never ever use Wikipedia. I always used Wikipedia as my primary source, and just cited everything under different names.
For my final exams, for all 3 papers, I ONLY used wikipedia, and I ended up with a 7! (For those of you who don’t know what IB is, 7 is the highest mark you can get, and IBHistoryHL is equivalent to a 6credit first year history course).
December 7th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
WIKIPEDIA IS VERY RELIABLE ON RECENT CHINESE HISTORY ( 1800-1900 PERIOD )
December 7th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Wikipedia is a good spot to get started. It’s not a place to cite for references on a research paper. Not because its inaccurate, not because it’s a hoax. Only because it is a fluid environment and what I cite today may not be there next week. What good is it to cite a source if the source will vanish?
However, it is a great place to get started. Most articles have their facts cited - and those sources are at the bottom of the article. Guess what? Those are reliable sources - go find the information there and cite THAT page, instead of wikipedia itself.
Wikipedia is a great site. Keep up the good work, but don’t expect to see my papers citing Wikipedia as a source any time soon!
December 7th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
There is a comma splice in this excellent article (after “…is not a failure).
December 7th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I’m still concerned about that whole “secret mailing list” debacle that I recently read about. If Wikipedia can continue to pass these credibility tests though, it might put me more at ease with regards to the accuracy of information. Reading the above responses though, it seems Wikipedia is still not perfect.
I can understand why so many professors are unwilling to see Wikipedia as a credible information source. You have a long way to go before you can convince most of them, and things like that secret mailing list issue and implications of authors with agendas and heavy biases aren’t going to help. Better to be honest and open about this sort of thing right now!
But regardless, I will not donate anything until you all lighten up with the people who add “Mostly Harmless” to the article about Earth.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
how, Pandita, can you say it is TOTALLY reliable is there are, in fact, “idiots” on the internet that undoubtedly post “untrue” and “retarded crap” over the real info? frankly, i love wikipedia and find it a great source to find out about pop culture, moreover culture generally. sadly, i wouldnt trust it to be a source for my history papers. because, while there are indeed facts that people recognize as credible and true, there are many subjective ideas that can be imparted, as well as “folklore” or “legends” that arent necessarily based in truth. hence, i will return to wikipedia for personal benefit and knowledge, but as far as blind TRUSTING goes, i remain skeptical. the basic idea of our beloved wiki would work if, strictly, officianados were allowed to post. credentials is all i ask from the posters. credentials.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Search for “Wikipedia founder discourages academic use of his creation”.
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation
I use it all the time; same as I ask people on the street for directions.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
i just looked up information on carbomer and found exactly what i needed in two scrolls. the other day we needed to find out what the L. means on the end of botanical names and an article on the founding father of nomenclature (initial L., by the way) appeared. all this while my wiki-hatin’ coworker was slandering the site (sweet justice). if anything, the links to actual research sites are valuable, just think of it as launch pad for further research. I would not source wikipedia itself in a paper but i would use it to find something i could more “legit”. besides, where else could i find something on ellen page and the mystic knights of the oingo boingo and the forbidden zone!
keep it up!
December 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Well,Wiki reliable or unreliable is just not a proper question to be asked.
The proper question to be asked is whether we as a community that drive the wiki are reliable or not.
The two perspectives with which the wikipedia can be viewed as >
1 > Wikipedia take answers from us and give it back to us and claim that they are better than other encyclopedias.
2 > Wikipedia provides us with an innovative platform where we can exchange information and help share knowledge, in turn helping us form a symbiotic chains of relationship with other community members.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Keep up the good work guys. Its been a great source for me, and whatever I have searched here turned out to be correct. I never got wrong information from wiki.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I am a college librarian. I tell students all the time that there is nothing wrong with READING Wikipedia but that they should never RELY on it as a authoritative source on anything, and they it is unacceptable to use it as a source in any assignment because anyone can post or edit its articles. Unlike Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., there is no editorial review. No one takes responsibility. If a newspaper publishes inaccurate information, someone will lose his or her job. A scholarly or scientific journal, or a book published by a scholarly publisher, has not only editorial review but peer review. Wikipedia has none of that. It is very up-to-date, but full of opportunities for chicanery.
Like the present discussion, a lot of interesting and enlightening ideas come out through Wikipedia. This is the new blogosphere environment that has left the older encyclopedias behind. But when students search Google and Wikipedia instead of reliable databases, encyclopedias, and books, they are really missing something. They expect to type in a few words, push a button, and get the right answer which they don’t have to process. They’d probably like to copy it, paste it, and turn it in under their own names without even reading it. Critical information literacy involves evaluating sources for reliability. The name of Wikipedia means nothing when everyone from Daniel Carver to Wendy the Retard can post to it. Getting into Wikipedia is as easy as getting into the phone book. There is no quality control.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
All information should be treated w/ skepticism and circumspection. Any encyclopedia can print and reprint erroneous info. I love Wikipedia because it is LIVE and so much fun! But really kids, you ought to double check everything, whether you go it from the exalted Encyclopedia Britannica or from your buddy down the street. Either party could be full of shit and not know it… or not care.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
i love this website its great!!
December 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I use Wikipedia everyday, it’s my main source of information, and it’s free! I hope it will remain growing and improving forever. Thank you.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Wiki is good for general research and as a starting point - but it’s important to remember who might be writing the articles. As you get into more specialised content, you’re looking predominantly at undergraduates being the primary contributors as they cover the same stuff in lectures and want to “add their bit”. Therefore, if you are at that level, it’s important to remember that (although some may be written by people more qualified) it is probably better to use the SOURCES at the bottom of the page to check and confirm content - as well as giving you a more reliable reference (that’s what they’re there for).
Wiki is an encyclopedia. It’s not meant to be the be all and end all. If you think it’s inaccurate - you don’t have to use it. If you think it is accurate - CHECK.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Wikipedia is the most worthless, irrelevant scab on the internet. Full of grandiose troll admins who’s highest notable credit is being a renaissance fair worker. Nothing is “reliable” about any of it, and mainly due to the admins who have ruined any chance of it ever being useful. I wish I could block it from search results and any other link. I have used adblocker with the URL, and that helps. But not enough. Lame!
December 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Of course there´s a great bias against Wikipedia. For two reasons:
1st it´s a threat to all othe ecnyclopedias out there. It´s alot more accessable and exhaustive by its nature. Thus there´s a heavy business aspect to smear its name.
2nd there´s the demystification. Academics and experts live by their expected ntions about themselves. Wikipedia makes knowledge alot more accessible which is a threat to the same peoples status.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Two important points:
1) The editors of Encyclopedias are paid to be impartial and objective by their publishers.
2) There is a permanent record of everything written in an Encyclopedia.
The errors in an Encyclopedia will generally be the result of poor work or the perpetuation of misconceptions and erroneous facts. The errors in Wiki can also be like this, but are much more open to be the possibility of bias to a particular agenda. As the record of changes made in Wiki by the editorial team is not easily accessible to public scrutiny, it is impossible to see if a certain agenda is being imposed upon certain areas of information (especially as so many changes are made to articles so frequently). The changes in an Encyclopedia made from edition to edition are there for all to see, and so any political bias can be analysed and understood.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/ is an interesting article concerning possible lack of trustworthiness in Wikipedia.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
The info on wikipedia CAN BE manipulated by a minority. Therefore, not to be trusted blindly.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I think Wikipedia is a great source for reference. The quality standards have definitely improved over the years.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Wikipedia is an unpredictably mixed bag. I warn all my students that if I catch them citing it in their papers (unless, of course, Wikipedia is the subject) they’ll get an automatic F. Not only is the information unreliable at best, it’s a crutch for the intellectually lazy.
If you’re casually exploring a topic, or don’t mind getting information that’s wrong/biased/irrelevant, Wikipedia is fine. As background material, it’s fine.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I always find Wikepedia to be a great source of information. You just have to be willing to be a bit skeptical. Especially if it is a topic with a devisive reputation.
However, if you are a student. Always understand that Wikepedia should be considered one of the best Starting Points for research, NEVER the end point for that research. Most good teachers and professors understand that and as a result should never allow Wikepedia as a final reference point for research.
Greg
December 7th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
It is not reliable at all- people are allowed to make additions or subtractions whenever. For instance, as of Dec. 7th at 2:26 Central Time- it notes that on George Bush’s Wiki site that he’s the biggest moron ever. Doesn’t seem quite accurate- you may disagree with him, or the war, but it merely opinion that is found there. Some people really like him-maybe… I have seen this on countless pages and would not use wikipedia for any official work!
December 7th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I have mixed feelings about Wikipedia. On the one hand, I find it a quick and often fun way to gather information that one doesn’t see just anywhere — information that can be obscure and even somewhat trivial, but nonetheless consists of things I really want to know (and, often, have long wondered about). Because of this I visit Wikipedia almost daily. It’s also a good place to share such information. On the other hand, when it comes to various controversial subjects, I generally find that Wikipedia articles are heavily biased in one direction, even while purporting to be neutral. And that’s a big turnoff for me.
Once in a while I find something incorrect in an article — which is to be expected since “anyone can edit” — and it’s good to have the ability to fix it. But in articles involving things that people have strong and conflicting opinions about, certain things are simply not allowed to be said, regardless of how neutral the terms they are put in or what kind of support they can be given.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I think WIKIPEDIA has alot of valueable information and I like it. Without WIKIPEDIA the world would be pointless
December 7th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
YOU ROCK! DONT EVER CHANGE!!!!
December 7th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
As I daily use several languages, I have put four Wikipedia-pages in my Bookmark-list.
Never since the existence of Wikipedia have I looked for any subject in vain.
With some kind of pity I see the encyclopedias that I still have and use but
updating will be a task for a new generation…or become obsolete.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Mrs. Surrat: As an English teacher you often give out “reaseach” papers???
December 7th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I found myself opening wikipedia every other day , i got a habit of searching any info on wikipedia first , because it is prooven to be acurate . I know there are many people behind this site making sure we all get the best. Keep up the good work wikipedia staff , i’m with you all the way
December 7th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
i love this site i trust it i use it at school even keep up the good work your the best love ya
December 7th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Wikipedia is a work in progress - thats the beauty of it. No you cant trust 100% of content 100% of the time but precisely the same goes for even the highest quality top-down media. Empowering people to take responsibility for collaborative knowledge production, to deliberate and build consensus over meaning and in doing so to create one of the single most useful resources on the web - that is revolutionary!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Wikipedia would be great if people would just check the information given on the articles. I love Wikipedia and its user-friendly interface, but I always will check what information I’m planning on referencing.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
not on anything political — why do you think they moved to San Francisco? It’s the most left-wing city in the US that they could find.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
i do not think that wikiepedia is a reliable sourse, because you can copy and paste anything into it that you would like to. or delete things as you wish
so if you would like to make great grades on papers DO NOT USE THIS WEBSITE!!!
thanks(:
December 7th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
It’s all well and good saying wikipedia is unreliable and rubbish and what have you… but what other choices are there? Encyclopedia Britannica… er… umm… encarta?But you have to pay for them! And, by the time you read the first word in the “A” section, the entire encyclopedia is out of date. Wikipedia is updated constantly. Cathedral or bazaar, that’s the choice here.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Franckly talking wikipedia is one of the sites that explains a lot of information for me in just the way i like.On the other hand i cannot imagine my success in the college without this reliable site
December 7th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Jeez, man! Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, which may be great for teachers, but all in all, ANYONE can edit someone. My friend who was really bored just wrote BLAH BLAH BLAH on one of the articles, and they took that! I mean, come on! That’s just wrong, man!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I think wikipedia is a great source of imformation.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
kudos to wikipedia. i visit wikipedia everyday.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
no you cant
December 7th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
People who use things wrongly shouldn’t complain when it goes wrong. And anyone who doesn’t check the sources for /anything/ they read or hear or see is foolish. In my experience, wikipedia articles I have read have always been backed up by good (IMO) sources, I say in my opinion because all fact is just opinion, really.
It would be nice if people who are educated on a subject reviewed versions of articles, though, although personally I think this should happen on another site, as long as other academics can criticise them, too! So many subjects are debated, or defined differently for different people, and I think an open system is the only method able of giving all sides.
You’ll also notice that my second sentence began with an ‘and’. It makes me laugh when people hold spelling and grammar to be indicative of the intelligence of an individual. I would prefer to define an intelligent individual as one who can see through mistakes like those to the underlying meaning.
In closing, wikipedia ftw!!!111
December 7th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
yes! i trust and everybody trust
December 7th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Wikipedia is awesome! Of course it has inaccuracies, but part of the point is that loud, whiny, elitist, punks like the one’s that are complaining on this blog that think think they know everything can take two seconds to correct it instead of just sitting around complaining about it.
Also, so what if they have articles about commercials, TV shows, and other pop-culture, non-academic related things? It’s not meant to be purely academic, that’s part of the beauty of it. One person stated that they don’t want to read about, “some hamburger campaign that some restaurant had for two weeks,” then don’t click the link!
You can’t believe everything you read ANYWHERE, at least wikipedia is a place where I can take information with a grain of salt and not get a huffy, puffy, insulted response when I don’t take every single little thing they say seriously.
Wikipedia, I love you!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
it sucks balss
December 7th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I love you guys and want to give you my body. Keep up the good work!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
nobody blames the flock of sheep for the trust in it’s shepherd.
the slaughterhouse is every sheep’s heaven(as if this life ain’t good enough)
the same flock of sheep that under careless guidance turns to a mob
and burns books, hunts down witches
and commits crimes of epic proportions(it’s all written down).
and no one can blame the sheep-priest shepherd.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Wikipedia is a useful first step. I find that many articles give me a good overview of a subject which prepares me for serious research, but as a historian and as a poet, I don’t take it seriously as a resource. In my areas of expertise I have noticed considerable omissions, biases, and lapses that make me wince, and I have contributed some material to correct and expand articles, but quite frankly, Wikipedia is a race between ignorance and hard work, and ignorance will always have the leading edge. Wikipedia is a genuinely useful source, when used properly, but Wikipedia is merely the beginning, not the end of research. Students especially should learn that looking something up on Wikipedia is a useful study aid, but is not a replacement for actual mastery of the material. That takes research and study. Most of all, it takes the ability to think critically and deeply about a subject.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I think it is a good site but I am not crazy for the fact that users can edit a page so the they can change any thing they want even if it isn’t real. So I do not approve of this.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Perhaps the INTENT of Wikipedia and not the initial content of the site should be the focus of so much debate. The base that Wikipedia forms now, and no doubt will perfect in the future, should be an exciting thing for our evolving internet culture. The amount of information available to the casual computer user compared with 10 years ago is almost incomprehensible. Wikipedia is a natural extension of this trend. Sure, you may get a piece of bad information here and there, but so long as you’re not George W. Bush looking for information on Nuclear Weapons in Iran and Iraq you should be able to look at a variety of sources and get at least a general idea regarding a subject. I personally love Wikipedia and have donated to Wikimedia because I believe this is a project worth our effort and only good things can come of it. If you’re a naysayer, I’d say get involved, edit articles and make a difference. It’s easier to be a critic than to become involved. — Stu
December 7th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Wikipedia is the best website ever, no matter what anyone says. I have learned so much from it. Now it does have mistakes, but what do you expect from a site that ANYONE can edit. Come on people, be real.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I love Wikipedia, but they’re going to have to clean up a bit. It’s just not good enough for them to let people edit the articles~ they’re going to have to meet plenty of requirements. Wikipedia was a reliable site until I saw even more articles being screwed by hackers. The alchemy pages are filled to the rims, now, with information, a majority false.
However, I still do love Wikipedia very much.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Gary Weiss edits his own wikipedia page with blessings from the very top, and people who blow the whistle on this clear breech of trust (no, we can not trust wikipedia) get banned permanently.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Wikipedia is great for quickly finding info on almost any topic. For serious work this information should be cross referenced and checked.
BUT… I think Wikipedia does itself a disservice using the results of the poorly written and researched article from Nature as validation for the site.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Only fifty articles were compared, and yet people declare this proof that Wikipedia is more accurate than a print encyclopedia?
The English version of Wikipedia has over two million articles. Fifty articles is only two and a half thousandths of a percent of the English Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia, as a whole, had over nine million articles in November. The German Wikipedia itself has over sixty hundred and fifty thousand articles.
Essentially, 50 articles represent not even a percent of a percent of the German Wikipedia - 50 articles of over 650,000 articles is less than 0.0077 percent. Compared to the whole of Wikipedia, 50 articles only count as less than 0.00056 percent.
Hardly what I call a good representation.
I don’t specifically hate Wikipedia or anything - in fact, I use it quite often… probably on a daily basis! But, please resort to better data than that.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Although wikipedia is a free-source tool, I really think that it has been the best contribution to share knowledge among people despite their conditions. It’s true that there are some inconsistencies regarding some of their articles but I, as a physicist, feel really good reading all the stuff.
Great consistency and accuracy as average in my opinion.
And those of you who think wikipedia it’s not reliable because of its lack of “accuracy” take it as an opportunity to go and edit the mistaken text and improve it in order to help others grow!
Wikipedia is awesome!
December 7th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Language, information technology, the printed medium, how we communicate, how we learn, is constantly in a state of flux. If you go back far enough, a man was almost kicked out of his church for suggesting and supporting the theory that the Earth rotated around the Sun (look it up on Wikipedia!! Galileo Galilei) Years later most of these “heretic” theories proved true. Unfortunately many people from that age were born, lived and died believing otherwise because they were forced to trust the authorities in power at that time, much like we are being persuaded to trust authorities in power today, and that includes your government, your church, your college professors and the encyclopedia manufacturing companies, who are telling you that the concept of instantly sharing education and information freely and discussing it online is “dangerous”. If you are any serious student of world history you will recognize this as a familiar tactic, and only because it threatens the status quo. The problem with Wikipedia is one of instant access. Just as one blogger here said, they posted “BLAH BLAH BLAH” and it stuck, but it was like graffitti written with cool-aid, the next more knowledgeable and caring person who came along, just as easily removed the offending text, but more importantly, if the other person continually posts “BLAH BLAH BLAH” or references biased or unverifiable information and spams the page, he is eventually banned. People need to read and understand the terms and mechanisms of Wikpedia before making a decision about it, or worse, before condemming it. There are a lot of undeducated and biased opinions about Wikipedia being posted here, people just don’t care to take the time to check it out, but the information is readily available concerning how it works. This is progress, and like it or not, it is here to stay, other modes of education that are now almost obsolete, the slide rule, doing long math calculations on paper (all replaced by the calculator or personal computer) so why can’t a student push a button on a webpage and instantly get a wealth of information about any topic, isn’t that the pure intention of the Internet to begin with? Is it because the “powers that be” are jealous that today’s youth can become instant experts on subjects that took them years of hitting the books to master? It is up to us to nurture education and the free flow of information, and guide it into something worthwhile and beneficial for all humans. As I said before, there are only so many trees to kill to make encyclopedias, and because an encyclopedia is a dynamically changing reference, it no longer belongs in a dated hard bound book made of organic materials that are fast becoming scarce in our world.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Im in university and i use this site all the time. I use it for research constantly (biochemistry) and have never found any errors in the information. Without it i bet my grades would fall.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
In graduate school I was taught to question every written statement, regardless of its source. Even the scientific literature is replete with information of questionable reliability, and this has been the case for hundreds of years. Wikipedia is not special in this regard. Therefore, I use it as a quick source of information, as background knowledge. For more rigorous requirements, it is always well to seek out several modern and professional opinions and sources before using the information as a basis for hypotheses, product design, teaching, and so on. But almost certainly my first stop is Wikipedia.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
That’s right! Wikipedia is very reliable. Instead of looking something up in the dictionary, I’ll just type it in Wikipedia. I trust Wikipedia.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Unsurprisingly Wikipedia has shown us that it is reliable. Sure, anybody can add anything to it but it will get removed within hours. I have complete faith in Wikipedia and use it for my research.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
50 articles out of 15 volumes? WOW, that’s good enough for me!! (I wonder if “sarcasm” was one of the articles checked??)
December 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Wikipedia is a great place for quickly finding information on most subjects. But you have to be careful with what you find in there, especially with subjects that involve even the slightest amount of opinion or expert knowledge. If they provide links to their sources, you really have to know whether those sources present a one sided view or reflect a good cross section.
Wikipedia generally tends to be quite biased in these sort of information. If you don’t understand enough about the subject matter to start with, I’d say you should ignore everything but the most basic explanation about it, and follow the sources to learn enough about it to figure out what keywords you should enter into your favourite search engine, or better yet, which books to read.
In its current state I would never accept Wikipedia as a cited reference for an assignment.
The articles aside, Wikipedia itself isn’t really that open. It’s only as open as far as someone with the power of banning you agrees with your article. The ultra defensive posture wikipedia has when comes to critiques about it are nothing short of bizarre. How their UK media relations manager could say a specific critic of theirs should “f*** off!” shows their view of those that disagree with them. Also, banning entire IP blocks just to silence one editor, against whom no evidence was proven. Banning anyone who even attempts to edit a few specific articles, and banning editors over petty feuds shows that Wikipedia isn’t nearly as open as many of the posters think (or wish it is).
So, should students cite wikipedia in their references? I think being able to figure out whom to trust is a very important skill in everyday life. I hope students that actually cite Wikipedia are just being lazy.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I have a bash.org quote spammed on my user page (http://www.bash.org/?816652) and I think it’s safe to paste it here, because I think it’s greatness as it gets the point across:
Ah you see I wouldn’t always trust Wikipedia as it is edited by people.
I hear Brittanica is edited by manatees.
Heh, anyway, cheers =)
December 7th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Wikipedia comes with a built in tool to check for previous editions of the same material. If you bother, you get much more than the “current official version”…Where a controversy may lie, a chance to examine the input made by various people with “different agendas” may be more beneficial than a one size fits all version.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Have a look at the article on Manchester UK if you want a laugh at just how poor Wikipedia really is - they are claiming to be the UK’s second city when in reality they have a population which is confirmed by the UK government as actually only the 8th biggest!
Laughable poor quality that shows Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I benefit a lot from wikipedia. So far all the contents I searched are correct and accurate, even technically in my profession. I appreciate all those who have contributed to the website. But I have a concern about the reference: when I use the references for my dissertation, my advisor said they are not formal or permanent, and can not be used as serious references. I have to redirect all the info from wikepedia to some books or papers. It is not fair for wikepedia.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
“found Wikipedia to be accurate and comprehensive — but lacking multimedia.”
Well, we all know exactly who’s to blame for that: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
December 7th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Sure, people can get on Wikipedia and change things, but things that are incorrect are usually fixed within a few SECONDS. People are monitoring Wikipedia’s recent changes 24/7, and it is extremely difficult to post incorrect information without it being reverted.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
People are monitoring Wikipedia’s recent changes 24/7, and it is extremely difficult to put in incorrect information without it being reverted within a few SECONDS.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
People who criticize Wikipedia are usually un-educated sloths of the lowest possible order. Of course the great unwashed masses are suspicious of it, it is too smart for them. The Wal-Mart shopping, gun rack owning, beer drinking Jesus freaks who cant get enough of NASCAR wouldn’t understand intellect if it bit them on their Big Mac eating asses.
Calton
Proud Wikipedia Editor.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
this place shows false information. Why edit it??????????????????
December 8th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Wiki is a good source of information. general information about common subjects especially.
but. do i trust them? hell no.
theres too much politics and other bs going on behind the scenes for it to ever be trusted on many subjects.
wiki will always be ONE source out of many when im looking for information.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:08 am
I remember lying in bed as a child almost 60 years ago and dreaming of the possibility of linking the knowledge held by ordinary everyday people so that it would become available in an easily accessible form.
And amazingly my dream has come true.
I contribute and edit Wikipedia myself and most certainly believe in this project. I agree that it does not and nor is it intended to replace research from original sources, on the other hand it makes a vast quantity of knowledge instantly available to the reader, thus facilitating the important first step in learning about almost any subject one can possibly imagine.
Wikipedia is a light and beacon of hope in a dark and uncertain world.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:10 am
I’m the 188th person to sign up as a Wikipedia contributor, was a devoloper, admin, and the first elected bureaucrat. I’ve watched Wikipedia descend into a free for all. It’s very hard to make certain corrections stick. I’m still finding significant errors, and often having to make several repeated attempts to get past the “consensus” of other writers who insist their version is right.
There is no effective editorial oversight, and I don’t blame teachers for flunking students who cite Wikipedia articles as a reference. Wikipedia is a bit better than Google, but readers are cautioned to check out all references personally. It’s not as reliable as Britannica, I’m sorry to say.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Most of the negative comments I have read on here are quite silly. If a person understands Wikipedia and how it is written and works, they will realize that the vast majority of these complaints are nonsensical.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Quite frankly, Wikipedia is a bag of arse. A number of us have spent a few days trying to get an entry on Wikipedia for a very popular forum that we all contribute to, and have had any number of spurious reasons from assorted uber-geeks why we aren’t as ‘notable’ as all manner of esoteric and frankly dubious crap which seems to constitute the main content of Wikipedia nowadays.
I started off thinking that Wikipedia was a reliable open-source encyclopedia, and I now realise that it is merely the place that certain frustrated dweebs (sorry, ‘Editors’ - my mistake…) go to vent their spleen. I think I’ll stick to proper tidy sources in future - Wikipedia is just too subjective for anyone to take at all seriously. Veracity? Severely compromised.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:59 am
I don’t trust Wikipedia and most shouldn’t either.
In addition to the fact that anyone can edit a page, there is the fact that the editorial board of Wikipedia appears to be a bunch of 19 year old college kids in mindset if not fact.
Then there is the tendency to censor unpolitically correct posts, passages or cites as not meeting Wiki standards, yet PC posts fly by.
At best Wiki can be used as support for a High School Paper upto Sophomore year. Anything more rigourous needs more stable and valid sources.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:08 am
i love Wikipedia so so much its so so great really and over all its free and trusting but i dont trust Arabic version god bless you all people around world love Wikipedia
December 8th, 2007 at 1:39 am
I love Wikipedia. It’s reliable if you note the sources.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:49 am
No one encyclopedia is best, of course standard text versions have a place still but wikipedia is a good and useful site for primary research. No one doing serious research should ever take the word of a single source and should check citations. Wikipedia needs to be careful with its editorial team, to make sure there is peer review of editorial practice and hopefully in the future it will be able to show review by independent outside acemdic sources to support its legitimacy.
It’s a brilliant concept and all the power to it.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:56 am
I like wiki. It is so important to me. I get all the information here. The best site ever!
December 8th, 2007 at 2:27 am
I am very disappointed with the responses I see here from teachers / professors / librarians etc. “Oh heavens, students don’t know which sources to trust!” Is it not your responsibility to instruct them on finding and critically evaluating sources? “They should use books and journal articles!” Are you teaching students how to use library catalogs and databases like EBSCO? Can your students navigate Dewey or Library of Congress call numbers? Don’t blame Wikipedia for the failures of teachers and librarians.
Oh, and please drop the Wikiality and Wikilobbying arguments. They’re not news.
And finally, let’s drop the “if it’s not edited, it’s crap” too. Jay said that newspapers fire people for mistakes…right. They did such a great job prior to the invasion of Iraq! And Valerie Plame’s outing as a CIA operative got people (like Robert Novak) fired, right? (Answer: hell no!)
December 8th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Pick a topic. Read.
If you feel that, in your expert opinion, something is wrong, hit the “edit” button and make changes.
If you’re wrong, somebody else with more expertise might make a correction.
There is no hidden agenda. No politics. There is no single “professional opinion”. Only the people with the most real expertise have interest in conveying a strong position.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Some of the posts said something along the lines that “you can’t cite Wikipedia as a source because when you go to check the source it may not be the same as when you used it.” Actually, this is not entirely true. You can cite a Wikipedia entry and be sure that whoever checks your citation will see the same content, simply by citing the specific revision history you are looking at (click “History” at the top of the article, then click on the date and time of the first line in the list, and you are now looking at a static version of the page as it existed at that date and time. Now just copy that page’s URL (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=176488044)). Now whoever checks your citation will see the same content you saw.
Dan Henderson
Independent Associate
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
danhenderson@prepaidlegal.com
http://danh.timefreedomtoday.com/
December 8th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Wikipedia is a good source. In my experience, it has provided accurate and reliable information for the most part. This is from randomly going through articles in my spare time and comparing them to other websites, encyclopedias, and information from teachers and other reliable sources. There are a few bits of information and articles which are unreliable, but it is an open-ended site that is edited by the user base. Reading through this article and most of the numerous replies, I have to take a stand on both sides for certain points. Wikipedia is a good and mostly reliable source with accurate and up-to-date articles, but there are inaccuracies. The varying content from language to language is a sign that some users have more knowledge or interest in certain areas than other users of a different language, but that does not mean that one language is more inaccurate than the other. I do not have any knowledge as to what standards and restrictions exist for Wikipedia in any language or country though.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:35 am
I like it. Easy to understand; the articles I’ve searched are very reliable
December 8th, 2007 at 2:43 am
On somethings wiki is right and others it is not. I would rather just ask a professor for info instead
December 8th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Wikipedia is not accurate, at least not consistently. I have checked it for fun and found it to be off at times. Most encyclopedias are also not on, mostly because they are not updated. If you want scholarly work you must get either a book or a scholarly journal. I am a graduate history student, and I was working on a research project. I compared to wikipedia–sadly it was quite off.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:02 am
America loves Kool-Aid. Apparently, so does Germany. Drink up all ye self-deluded.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Short version: It helps to be a skeptic. It really helps to have the knowledge base that allows one to be a skeptic.
Longer version: After reading an article — sometimes *before* reading it — I always check the History tab to see what recent edits have been made, and compare the current text with that of a couple revisions back to see if the changes seem to be valid. Usually they are, but I try to rectify any vandalism I do find as soon as possible.
Next I click on the Discussion tab to see whether anything is being debated. Occasionally I add to this.
Thirdly, I always proofread what I read, and straightaway repair any simple errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and style.
That said, for me, using Wikipedia is a lot of self-imposed work and responsibility, but I cannot help going away thinking I’ve made the world a better place, in some small way, for having made those changes.
If I would make one structural change, it would be to require anyone editing to have a real identity, and not be able to make changes until after a two- or three-day waiting period. That would, I think, cut way down on vandalism, and thus reduce the level of objection which Wikipedia currently faces.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Wikipedia is free (!) and full of useful information. It also contains a bit of crap - ranging from amusing to dangerous. I think it would benefit from the implementation of a trust, peer-review, or peer-confidence system where contributors could establish a reputation as a subject-matter expert.
Of course there are always going to be those that choose to anger, mislead, misinform, beguile, bemuse, abuse, persuade, confound, inflame, or otherwise distract honest seekers of knowledge.
I use Wikipedia several time each week as a casual research tool, and I love the ease of accessibility and the democratic nature of the medium. It certainly has some shortcomings, but those shouldn’t dissuade knowledgeable users from using it as a tool.
Until there is some sort of trust/peer review mechanisim, I choose to use it for what it is.
Caveat lector and Viva Wikipedia.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:14 am
It’s really easy folks and I think they are trying and its FREE, a worldwide public service and the fact it’s this emotional alone means something. They know it, we know it or we wouldn’t even be here.
Build levels of peer review and put them on different domains so people can visual choice what to expect.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:41 am
I am a junior in high school, and I find wikipedia to be very helpful in my studies, as I am taking multiple AP courses for college credit. However, at times information that I know is true is portrayed as false on Wikipedia, and vice versa, so I always verify my research. Wikipedia is a wonderful place to start though, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart!
December 8th, 2007 at 3:56 am
If you oppose Wikipedia because of inaccuracy, why not jump in and try to improve it. Join us, let us fight together.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:58 am
It’s great for looking up anything that’s not too important.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Reading many of the previous responses, I am surprised that there are so many rather, if I may say so, uneducated cynics.
Wikipedia is, like most sources of information, one which may need the reader’s digression and perhaps a double-check. It should be hailed as an excellent, detailed source that has great potential. That being said, usually most things in life can use improvement- and Wikipedia is no exception.
Despite this, Wikipedia should not be seen as an unacceptable source for the classroom, or one to be deniable and incorrect. It just needs some work and improvement- and critics could serve to better it, instead of just type their disgust. (Right? give a little.)
December 8th, 2007 at 4:03 am
I’ve used this many times in regards to school work & references for work. I do verify all of my findings and cross reference everything that I use, however think of it this way… If your going to go on to the web and get information it was ALL published by individuals when you get right down to it.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:04 am
wikipedia is an excellent resource. for personal use, it can be extremely informative and helpful. for school research, it serves as an excellent starting point to gather information–then verify it with more direct and reliable sources (journals, etc). quite honestly i don’t know how i would manage school without it. it even comes in handy for math or physics homework when i still don’t quite understand the concepts as presented in the textbook.
all too often people attribute, in my opinion, too much credit to print encyclopedias. the people working on those are just as much subject to opinion/agenda as anyone else. granted, vandalism and incorrect information are probably quite rare in print encyclopedias, but statistically, the amount of vandalism/incorrect information on wikipedia is minimal as a large number of people monitor and collaborate on the articles. if i’m not mistaken, it’s something along the lines of collective intelligence. (and i’m sure a number of you unfamiliar with that concept will go wikipedia it right now, no?)
yay wikipedia.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Being a pathological Wikipedia reader who literally gets “sucked-in” often
loosing complete track of time, or more accurately switching to a dormant
semi-conscious state where physical activity is reduced almost entirely to my
mouse clicker appendage (index finger) and some basic limited arm movement.
With my other arm being reserved for auxiliary purpose (usually coffee
administration). Needless to say, I’m enamoured with Wikipedia, despite any
detrimental effects it’s had on me. Personally speaking, these comparisons are
of little value (other than dramatic entertainment). My grand insight reveals
that fear and resistance to change, nay, fear of change! lies at the heart of
this conflict and many others, and my profound advice to everyone is this:
Don’t fear the Wiki, become the Wiki.
Or as the borg would say, “resistance is futile!”
…Oh and Question everything! … and, and don’t eat canned crab meat before a
field trip (even if it’s only labeled as such). Seriously! (were it applies)
December 8th, 2007 at 4:27 am
I am a prominent administrator on Wikipedia, and it is fairly common knowledge that I don’t suffer trolls and trollish behavior easily. This is because the vandals and trolls keep me from the finer things that I would rather be doing to help improve Wikipedia. For example, I spent an inordinate amount of time helping to prove (on the basis of my iPod library) that no females have ever composed a notable opera. I have also dedicated a generous amount of time improving the articles on Letha Weapons and on wet T-shirt contests. Wikipedia is absolutely to be trusted, if only for the reason that I am working on it so carefully and in such a dedicated fashion.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:14 am
I find Wikipedia to be an incredibly useful source of information and on the whole the quality of the informatin is good. But it isn’t perfect and inaccuracies and personal agendas do creep in. So, just as with _any_ source of information, you need take steps to verify that the information is accurate.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Of course they will not agree the accuracy of Wikipedia because they are losing huge business from it. Other encyclopedia’s selling high prices and only middle class can afford to have it. While Wikipedia is running by volunters and donations are not mandatory. Based on my research this is the most accurate and most advance online encylopedia, why! because it can be modified from time to time. You can find and join to improve it rather than giving negative comments….Bravo Wikipedia…
December 8th, 2007 at 5:34 am
The personal biases and cultural interpretations that are allowed to stand on this site shock me. On the Islam sections, I have constantly been admonished by non-Muslims with anti-Islam attitudes or Muslims with Wahabi inclinations when trying to insert more balanced perspectives. I find, at least on the Islam topics, there to be little interest in truth and far more interest in asserting one’s own political and cultural agenda. Moderation is uneven, opposing viewpoints are summarily shut out, and discourse leaves a lot to be desired. This place is a zoo. It’s been a disappointing experience to try to contribute here.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Its hit or miss, as far as I am concerned…like any news source, it is simply decided upon the author as to what is deserving of being published. My advie to anybody out there…Wikipedia is fine, but always do your homework!
December 8th, 2007 at 5:37 am
As a university student who occasionally uses Wikipedia, I think I can sum the website up thusly: Wikipedia is fine if you want to read a quick laymen’s account of a topic just for fun or need information on pop culture, like summaries/trivia about movies and TV shows. If you actually are interested in learning and take Wikipedia seriously, you are being foolish. Read a book or an academic paper to understand something from a legitimate scholarly point of view.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:59 am
Well I’m here to say that from the early childhood of my life i ran through many pages to find out for knowledge which is updated,but as a sri lankan who is living in the developping asian region, I found wikipedia interesting and great and even a single piece of information is important in today’s world and it should be updated latest works such that today wikipedia have achieved that states and i may say it’s standard compared to bloody british so called high profit margin oriented Britannica….also I have monitored that so many educational institutes around the world have restricted there students to provide references from wikipedia for their researchers but wikipedia is a truly great project where people around the world could update the knowledge….long live to wikipedia!!!!!!my honors…let there not be a blooody queen’s empire’s britannica in future….it should fuck out from this world……..Today wikipedia is the central universal lyceum of aristotle to every cyber citizen………
December 8th, 2007 at 6:00 am
I hate it when professors say that we can’t use Wikipedia for research, when in all reality I completely agree… Wikipedia is much more reliable than anything else. Several people put their input into topics, and although anyone is available to do so… really who is gonna sit there and write false information about something just for laughs…. it would be a waste of time, and even if I had the time it would be entirely stupid. Wikipedia is awesome.
p.s. I use Wikipedia all the time for class anyway. hehe
December 8th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Kevin Wong:
“If you oppose Wikipedia because of inaccuracy, why not jump in and try to improve it. Join us, let us fight together.”
Editors have called your revisions of plagiarism vandalism too? Awesome!
Yes, let’s jump in and fight them — together!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Personally, I love wikipedia! When I don’t understand something in class I look up the content and read further into it. It has been an extreme help in college, though I admit I try not to take everything I read word for word. Instead I use it as an overview. So far I have managed to sleep in class come on wikipedia and still get an A when the test rolls around. Thanks.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Wikipedia will thrive or decay on really one major point:
Can it live up to it’s “neutral point of view” principles?
Sadly, it does not on political issues and figures. Ron Paul has to be one of the biggest puff pieces I have ever seen. Nancy Pelosi has a one-sided pro-article as well. Your article on Global Warming completely avoids the controversy of if it even exists because of man-made causes - one hss to find some other entry on your site to read of it.
Get these imposters off your team of editors, they are easy to spot. Seriously. It’s not that their original additions are bad, it’s that they hobby-horse the article fanatically and bar factual contrasting information from being inputed. I’m sure this has been brought up before; fix it.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Every critic says that some information is inaccurate or downright false. However, this is one of the concepts of Wikipedia: the ability to change something one thinks is incorrect. If you say that something in an article is factually incorrect, then go change it yourself…or have someone you know who knows more do it for you. You’ll be doing people a great service in doing so. If Encyclopedia Britannica makes a mistake (whether clerical or otherwise), would you still consider it an authority on that specific area? No. You’d look somewhere else, right?
Humans make mistakes; luckily, you can rectify mistakes in Wikipedia. You only need to watch out for vandals, who have absolutely nothing better to do than deface perfectly useful articles.
If professional historians/researchers truly wanted to, they could contribute themselves toward an article’s perfection.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:24 am
There is a difference between scholarly research and Wikipedia, and the difference is simply this: Wikipedia is unreliable according to academic standards of citation. I will admit that I use Wikipedia all the time, daily in fact, but as preliminary research. If I want to know who “Nostradamus” is, for example, I would go to Wikipedia for the simple answer, but to really learn the subject I would consult a scholarly source, and one that has been evaluated by people who have spent year studying the subject, and not just a random person. Wikipedia has sources, but if you want to use those sources for scholarly research, it would require going to the source, reading what it has, evaluating whether that it’s legitimate… you’re better off using a source you know is valid, like a journal article or a book. Wikipedia has it’s uses, but it really is just a community encyclopedia… and encyclopedias shouldn’t be used for research purposes anyway.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Wikipedia is a source, singular. When looking up information, it’s a good place to start, but of course for complete verification, especially in scholarly works, MULTIPLE SOURCES are needed. The danger of misinformation or inaccuracy exists only for those too lazy to adhere to the three-source rule.
In terms of subjective information rather than factual information - opinions, current events and such, it’s a poor mind that swallows whatever it reads without thinking about it, regardless of the source - that means, think critically, whatever you’re reading - even the most prestigious scholarly magazines shouldn’t be taken as canon immediately, if the matter is important in some way and not simply passing interest.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:02 am
There are lots of biased articles and abusive admins, so I’m saving my money for more deserving projects!
December 8th, 2007 at 7:09 am
wikipedia discribes the each and every terminology of concerned subject i like this site very much
December 8th, 2007 at 7:24 am
I find inaccuracies in Wikipedia all the time, but so what? The concept is not to produce perfection the first time out of the gate. The concept is to allow and encourage participation of many individuals whose points of view on matters may differ, but who will ultimately reach consensus on what constitutes the truth. Isn’t this much better than one persons skewed view of an issue or item?
Encyclopedias, like the history books that are used in our schools to teach children the “truth” about the world as it was, are replete with flagrant errors-mostly of omission. Wouldn’t you love to be around to see what historians have to say about George W. Bush’s presidency? Do you think they will report on it accurately; i.e. that he was caught in so many lies to the American people that, had he been Pinnochio, his nose would stretch from New York to the Virgin Islands? Of course not. Whatever is said will be filtered and sanitized so thoroughly that it will contain not even the slightest hint of accuracy. That’s why encyclopedia articles are so short, boring, and totally without substance.
The free exchange of ideas and perceptions, filtered through 1000’s of human brains, will always have a greater chance of approaching reality than any report that is created by a few historians who are determined to report only the most sterile, verifiable facts. Facts never-and I repeat never-tell the whole story.
As for research-encyclopedias are not used for research by anyone who has graduated from the 9th grade-if then. People who are interested in the truth do exactly what I just described-on their own. They read articles, reports, books…any kind of data available, created by as many sources as possible to come to whatever conclusions they reach. A well written “history” of any subject will often have a bibliography as long-or longer-than the document itself.
Finally, participating in the writing of a document like Wikipedia gives individuals a feeling of pride- not only in the fact that they participated in the creation of an important piece of history (there is not denying that Wikipedia is an historical concept)-but in the process of writing itself. It takes more than a little effort to write something that is both comprehensible and structurally ( as in its use of the language) accurate-even with spell-check enabled. As is evidenced by many of the above comments, that is something from which many of Wikipedia’s readers could certainly benefit.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:34 am
hie! yes it is trust full to trust realy wikipeediyaa is most trustable like a fast friend those not only suggess good perhapes do the best not i only alotof trusties are in row on wikipeedia ….### my well wish and regards to the team (FAMILY)…. BYEEEEE MEET ALWAYS FOR HELP HELP AND FRIEND SHIP @@@@@@@@@
December 8th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Hi. I always use wikipedia when my BOSS give me some assignment B/c my profeesion require strong knowledge and innovative ideas thats why i m a good community pharmacist.But i have one suggetion to all the wikipedia user to carefully read and analyze every articll b/c they may contain errors so plz compare them with authantic encyclopedias……..
December 8th, 2007 at 7:49 am
My school librarian is militantly anti-wikipedian, she even has posters put up all over the place. I must show her this. Knowing her, she won’t believe a word of it, but it’s worth a try.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Many inaccuracies and much garbage exist on Wikipedia, but as long as you know that going in and cross-check information you plan to use, it’s great!
December 8th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Wikipedia is one of my favourite research tools, but like everything to be used wisely. In fact, Wikipedia addresses subtly different user needs than a conventional encyclopaedia.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:05 am
much appreciation to your endeavor and dedication to meet your users.
MY WISH IS WHETHER there Would be time to teach people who can not afford to buy books through your website
Thanks for your incredible contribution
December 8th, 2007 at 9:34 am
its an excellent site ever i have seen.. i feel it gives accurate as what britanica can give
December 8th, 2007 at 9:58 am
If there’s one thing I’ve heard from every professor and TA I’ve ever had it’s this : do NOT CITE WIKIPEDIA AS A RELIABLE SOURCE. With that said, Wikipedia is an amazing place to start research and to get the general gist of an idea or topic.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Most historical information is based on myth, perception and interpretation. Even what happened in yesterday news is based on myth, perception and interpretation. For instance does anyone know for sure if we landed on the moon?? Was there really a Robin Hood, was Caesar assassinated as portrayed, etc. ?? We end up with a good idea but unless you were watching everything in an omnipotent role you are simply speculating. Wikipedia is simply someone or some group’s opinion. It is however as good a place as any to start on a journey to find the truth. But the more you search for the truth the more elusive it becomes. One eventually must conclude that the truth itself is inconsequential and the journey to find it is what matters and defines us as humans.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am
‘People who criticize Wikipedia are usually un-educated sloths of the lowest possible order. Of course the great unwashed masses are suspicious of it, it is too smart for them. The Wal-Mart shopping, gun rack owning, beer drinking Jesus freaks who cant get enough of NASCAR wouldn’t understand intellect if it bit them on their Big Mac eating asses.
Calton - Proud Wikipedia Editor.’
Way to go,Calton. You’ve neatly put all the Wiki detractors in a box there. You’ll have to remind me again what ‘NASCAR’ is if I’m to cultivate an interest in it - we see so little of your fine upstanding American cultural traditions this side of the water. It’s almost as though we’re a different country and not the 51st state, isn’t it?
December 8th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Yes wiki is the most trusted and loved site.i always trust you WIKI
December 8th, 2007 at 10:17 am
There’s no such thing as an unbiased source; all facts are opinions with differing degrees of substantiation - it’s the almost universal accessibilty of Wikipedia as a forum that makes its vulnerability to malicious, ignorant or inaccurate posting appear as a weakness. But any reference source must be assumed to be biased or incomplete in some way; inaccuracy must be assumed from the start. That is a healthy attitude to any source; and the nature of the bias can often illustrate more than was intentionally revealed. Wikipedia is a starting point that never existed before, and that alone makes it worthwhile.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I was amazed. I cannot do nothing for you. Because you have all i want. If the computer is available to all the end users with internet means any one can become a great man using this.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Wikipedia is no different than any other source of information. At least it encourages people to think and the first thing you should ask is whether you believe the information you have been given. There is no absolute authority and everything has an element of doubt. Should this element of doubt increase to what an individual feels is an unacceptable level Wikipedia like all previous oracles will lose its validity. For now it is a fun and easy way to find out general details and a useful starting point for more in depth study.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I can’t resist adding to this overly-long commentary…
I think teachers who denigrate Wikipedia are going about things wrong, and missing an extremely valuable opportunity.
Wikipedia is simultaneously incredibly valuable, and incredibly risky. And it is the future. Look what is happening as traditional journalism fragments into blogs and a plethora of news sources of variable accuracy.
What more valuable lesson could students learn, than the ability to sort out what information to trust and what to not? How to track the evidence of accuracy, and the evidence of potential inaccuracy? About how NOT to BLINDLY trust ANY source of information, but consider the evidence?
Instead of steering students away from Wikipedia — embrace it! Have them FIND errors, agenda. After review, have them correct and/or tag them for correction, or put up comments on the discussion pages. If they find something they think is accurate, make sure they can explain WHY they think it is accurate — internal consistency, range of citations, neutral point-of-view.
Teach them why a “neutral point-of-view” is important — and difficult. Teach them why there is no such thing — but why it’s important to try anyway. Teach them about subtle ways of biasing information — they will encounter this all the time from every side for the rest of their life. You’d better prepare them for it!
Teach them about primary sources. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Neither is Britannica. It is reasonable to require citations to be to primary sources when those are available and accessible to the student. The circumstances in which I would accept an encylopedia article as a citation in support of a thesis are limited.
Wikipedia discussion pages are great for indicating the existence of a controversy on a particular point.
Wikipedia is often a great tool to start off with, to get a grounding in a topic. To learn what the controversies are, what resources exist, the concepts and vocabulary. When I’m looking for a quick explanation of a question, and searching with Google, often Wikipedia comes up high on the list, and I’m seldom disappointed. That’s a really great plus, because TIME is critical in research. I can move on to my next question, and spend more time digging deeper.
Teach your students effective time management in their research.
Don’t teach students that controversy is bad. Don’t teach them that every issue has two sides! Do teach them that facts trump opinion — but teach them how to operate effectively when facts are in short supply.
Above all, teach them to doubt. Teaching them to doubt Wikipedia is good so long as you don’t do it as a label: “Wikipedia, bad, Britannica good”, but as a prototype: “Doubt Wikipedia, doubt the TV, doubt the radio, doubt your textbook, teachers make mistakes, and above all, doubt what you believed yesterday, whenever you get new evidence.”
Teach them honesty. Honesty about the quality of their information, about the foundations of their opinions. Teach them the courage to be wrong, and admit it, correct, and learn.
Just like Wikipedia.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Basically, you cannot trust _anyone_, and it doesn’t only apply to Wikipedia that you should critically ask yourself if it can be true whats written there, especially on certain controversial subjects, and also check other information sources.
I think that Wikipedia will make this world better and already has, but it cannot just earn the same reputation that other encyclopedias earned within severals decades and more within a few years.
And to solve the financial problem - instead of constantly asking for donations (what “professional” impression does that make?), it should maybe considered to sell a limited amount of commercial advertising space. A lot of “good”, non-commercial organisations have some sponsors, and Wikipedia would probably be in the position of carefully selecting them from a large number of offers.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I have found Wikipedia information to be completely false at times, obviously biased and in error by omission of important information. Many reference/source links don’t link (which may not be the fault of the contributor, since links on the web are very fluid) but this is not good.
In my opinion you should not rely on Wikipedia as an only source. You should check its facts with reputable sources compiled by scholars such as encyclopedias and academic text books.
I have found so many errors that I cannot possibly correct them all. I have contributed information about SUNY Empire State College by calling the college, writing to them by email, checking their website and reading information about it in the news media. Contributors should be very careful.
My main criticism of this article is that it doesn’t specify the 50 articles compared with the German encyclopedia. This could be construed as highly dishonest. Did Wikipedia overlords select articles they knew to be correct and not take a random sample?
In short, use Wikipedia, but handle with care. Do not rely on it as your only source under any circumstances and be careful when contributing information.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:57 am
I doubt that wikipedia is an integral and accurate source for information as its information is mostly collected, edited, and based on subscribed users and other virtual -e sources - sources which may not be as good and valid compared to books and real encyclopedias and other physical sources. On the other side wikipedia includes almost whatever information you’re looking for and in a matter of seconds you could get a good background, headlines, guidelines, or simple points that may help you start a full article or a book for a desired subject. At last I’d prefer to stick to those old ways of reading full detailed physical sources as writers write put all what’s in their brains in those sources.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:07 am
I think wikipedia is a very useful web side because is the same using a dictionary but wikipedia expands the knowledge of the word.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I am amazed at the number of students that use a single source as a reference. Good research means finding sources that support or corroborate. Be grateful that you have almost unlimited sources (not just Wikipedia) - use them - ten years ago you would have been spending hours in dusty libraries!
December 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
please don’t be angry, i just don’t think wikipedia is a really good source of knowledge because it could edit it’s articles anytime. What if the editors are unreliable, the users were going to suffer for the wrong information they received.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I look up wikepedia for all matters, google also types out wikepedia, it gives a comprehensive and brief summary of a vaaried range of information, and it is refernced, so you can look up further, its utility is doubtless, it is free of cost, and also rates the veracity of its own articles, which is more than you can ask for.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Wikipedia although it might not be the fastest or the most reliable. The thing is it helps kids and teenagers through out the worl further propose their education.
My opinion would be to give wikipedia 5 stars it has subjects on almost everything from movies, information, education and helpful tips. Lokk at how many people have visited wikipedia, i for one have recommended wikipedia 5 stars.
The thing to do is, if you need a bibiliography do use wikipedia or don’t write it as a source because it isn’t wikipedia that provides the info it’s some random people that are interested in the subject.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:25 am
All information is someone’s opinion. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. To form your beliefs from any single source of information (or opinion), no matter how “reputable” or “reliable” you feel it to be, is a good way to maintain a closed mind but may not be very helpful in gaining an understanding of any subject. Keep up the good work Wikipedia but we should not forget that just because a majority of people believe something is true does not necessarily make it so. Without making assumptions 1+1 can only ever be 1+1.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:27 am
wikipedia my favourite site which used for my academic purpose as well as my ordinary knowledge. when ever want an answer to a qn, i always in serch of wikipedia. more good, more friendly as my favourite teacher.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Wikipedia is good, but there is always the potential (and often the reality) of false or immature information on it. Certainly a lot of the info in it is not made by qualified people and is pushing and agenda. Also, its “citation needed” policy is good and bad- some people on it use this as an excuse to flag and delete info that is obviously true or info they personally disagree with. And you can’t remove this policy either, as that would be even worse.
As such, I would trust wikipedia if I’m just looking for general knowledge for interest (it is unrivalled in this respect), but not for guaranteed accurate information.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
wiki is my favorite encyclopidea. i foud wikipedia the very best encyclopidia
thank you
December 8th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I fail to see how Wikipedia differs from other information sources, online or otherwise. Nothing published on Wikipedia should be taken as gospel, absolute truth, the whole truth and nothing but, or as more authoritative than other sources. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR ALL OTHER RESOURCES. Even prestigious scientific publications have printed claims, data or other statements which were, upon reading, decried as utter manure by their audience.
In short, one should never take as gospel anything one reads or hears, but always verify it. This goes for traditional, prestigious and reputable publications as much, and perhaps more, as for Wikipedia. In fact, one tends to accept unquestionably anything printed in a traditional encyclopaedia because one expects it to be perfectly correct, accurate and free of any mistakes, errors or omissions all the time. Such a trust is perhaps more dangerous than perusing online references and verifying them.
That said, Wikipedia’s additional value in comparison to traditional publications is its wide scope. Not only does it deal with popular culture to an extent that no traditional work can hope to match, but it also lists many subjects that are treated at a level of detail found nowhere else at present.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I can say it yes because today my whole school entirely depends on wiki so cheers
December 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I consider Wikipedia as a friend who generates an interest for me in an unknown arena by . And i dont think it is a place for deep study of a subject, if ever u want it that is to be done by you not by them , but the external references do make a point for a serious reader.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
As with any public information I compare the information I get with what I already know. I have found errors, omissions, and at least in one case the author admitted not knowing some of the answers, ( but I knew ) and this was in the World Book Encyclopedia! Over all Wikipedia is at least as accurate as World Book.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Radical Openness?
I dont think so, theres an entire website called wikitruth just devoted to preserving the cover ups, censorship and manipulations of the truth that wikipedia admins engage in………
December 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Wikiepedia is a great idea but with the fact that anyone can go on an article and change it is the only downfall about it. My school is against wikipedia because of this and i semi-agree with this but still it has a LOT more resourses and articles on things in enclcopedias but it is not always as accurate as a non- edit site. Wikipedia is good if you want to know about something you have no clue about but its not always accurate so everyone should know that wikipedia is not the best place to us as a resource for essays or research and only use wikipedia to a certian point and also use other websites more then just wikipedia.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
C. Watt Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Too many people don’t understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be authoritative. It provides an overview and points to more in-depth sources. My wife teaches at a university and must constantly remind her students that Wikipedia is a fine place to start, but not acceptable as a source. The most valuable research tools on any Wikipedia page are the links and sources at the bottom of the page. You should never quote an encyclopedia, written or online, in any research paper anyway.
—————————————–
what he says is true. for the supporters, i say this: if you guys are still students, then the best way to cite wikipedia is to cite the external links; and don’t mind the haters.that’s all.
as for the haters, i say this: if you guys really think that any of us supporters will change our mind just because wiki’s ‘inaccurate’, then your’re in for a rude awakening; why don’t you guys just search up all the pages, and compare them to encyclopedia britticana your self? maybe it’s becuase we stick to vague comments that this war never ends, guys; we should put in the facts, and see who is right.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I think that Wikipedia is a trusted source! There is so much info, I wonder in how many books would you find all the information. I think you’d grow old searching for what you’re looking for.
I had an essay and used Wikipedia and my teacher was thrilled.
With just one word you can become a tiny bit smarter.
I think that people who think bad of Wikipedia should just stop using it.
All the articles that I have read for school are 100% accurate.
Thank you!
December 8th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
My recent experience with Wikipedia showed that they are more interested in keeping order than reporting facts. I was updating the Christianity section showing that there were and are polytheist versions of Christianity (Gnostism and Mormonism) complete with citations including one from the Encyclopedia Britannica (!) showing these groups ARE Christian and I get this note about being in a edit war. The guys deleting the REFERRED references were the once vandalising the article and I was undoing the damage and I get this note from someone who obviously didn’t even see what was going on?! So much for trustful information.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Since when was a toaster particularly useful (in reference to an earlier post) ?
December 8th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
The title of the article is, “Can You Trust Wikipedia?” Well, I think the answer is, “At Least as Much as Any Other Resource.”
Good articles cite their references (in some cases long lists of online and print materials), all you have to do is check them. Where there are insufficient references, take the article with a grain of salt and try to find a confirming (or contradictory) opinion elsewhere.
The fact that anyone can edit most articles is, overall, a good thing, because there are more instances of an editor improving an article than there are of an editor reducing its quality, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Amazing…
But there is bias in some places on de site
December 8th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Always,i have learned many things thanks to wikipedia,great construction page.Wikipedia thanks
December 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Interesting!
Wikipedia is usually the first place I go to find out about various topics, so this is comforting news
December 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
dont trusrt wiki sites ANYONE can edit them
December 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
One of my favorite quotes fits the wiki philosophy so well… “One of us is not as smart as all of us”. Giving users the privilige to create and modify articles on wikipedia encourages growth and devlopement of new and old ideas alike. Open source, like wikipedia, is the number one way to share information and ideas, and it will continue to thrive and mature into something even more wonderful than it is now.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
As Example:
Look up Tyrosine kinase inhibitor - find a great overview. Want to see the original work - read it in JCI, JEM, Science and Nature. One is an excellent overview - the others are the articles which report the work which resulted in a Nobel prize. Both can be biased, but one is reviewed by peers before publishing, the other is secondary. College professors who want critical review of original work don’t want to hear someone parroting Wikipedia’s (usually excellent) review. The professor who doesn’t recognize the importance of Wikipedia can’t see the forest for the trees and the student who doesn’t understand the importance of the trees is lost in the woods. A good teacher should be able to help his students and should himself be able to benefit from both original work and from reviews. Any Encyclopedia is merely a closed date closed author review; any online encyclopedia is closed as to author and maybe open to regular though likely not continuous review. Wikipedia is the newest form of depository of reviews of knowledge - but it does not try to be original source as can’t be referenced as such.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
THE TRUTH IS, MOST OF ITS COMPETITORS ARE NOW LOSING ITS BUSINESS. FROM BRITANNICA, WORLD BOOK, COLLIERS AND MANY MORE, THEY WANTS TO DESTROY THIS WEBSITE MADE OF THE MILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS UPHEAVAL. MILLIONS OF USERS WORLDWIDE EVEN SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES DEPENDS BY THIS FANTASTIC FREE WEBSITE. REMEMBER THAT MILLIONS OF STUDENTS WORLDWIDE LIVING IN POVERTY LEVEL, WHICH THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY SUCH EXPENSIVE ENCYCLOPEDIA AND THE WIKIPEDIA IS THE LAST RESORT.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Wikipedia is a great idea, it is the future of knowledge sharing. BUT it is inaccurate in many things, especially historical articles which sometimes are written with extreme bias. Another person here commented about chinese history and how he was banned from changing what was not correct. Also I lost a bet to my father when I told him wikipedia was the best invention since the Guttenberg press, he just asked me to show him the entry about the 6 day war between Egypt and Isreal and surely enough it was fully biased with the Isreali/Western point of view. If Egypt lost the war how could we have started it without sinai and ended with a peace treaty that gave us back all of Sinai.
Bias is everywhere, but when an idea as noble and has the potential to change the human race’s way of preserving knowledge, then it has to have less bias and more openness. The editors that are biased should be dealt with, both sides of a story especially in history HAVE TO BE GIVEN EQUAL CHANCES TO SHOW THEIR VERSION OF HISTORY.
As to the availablity of many unimportant articles about companies, products and the like I do not think this is in any way a negative thing.
I suggest that some articles be given a gold status. The gold status can only be achieved if an article is not contested at all. This will make some editors more lienient to other points of views to achieve gold status.
Also there must be representatives from each and every country with real power to remove and fight bias against their countries in wikipedia.
If this is to be for the benefit of the entire human race then all of us should be included, bias should be removed and should be scorned.
IF AND ONLY IF THAT HAPPENS I will tell my children ( my father already made up his mind ) that wikipedia is thier’s as much as it is everybody’s.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Wikipedia is one of the most accurate websites I have ever found. But my professors all hate it, and call it unreliable or not suitable for papers, but all the information on Wikipedia can be found to be accurate. I have never found a contradiction to what it says.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
In my previous post i did not mean the six day war rather the 6th of october war also known as yum kippur war.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I cannot speak to Wikipedia’s accuracy but whenever I’ve looked up something I already know something about, Wikipedia has been very accurate and copious with additional references and info.
One thing I like about it is the particular people that complain, as in right wing whackos and especially the christer conservatives. Go Wik!!
December 8th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
wikipedia is a very helpful and amusing website, it realy helps in understanding information in my opinions wiki is the best, read this report! guys!
Sports Report is one of the longest-running programmes on British radio. It started in the first week of 1948, and has always been aired from 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. Even during the Saturday evenings of the football season.
It originally went out on the BBC Light Programme, where it stayed until April 25, 1964. On August 22 1964 it became part of Sports Service and moved to the wavelengths of the BBC Third Programme (used for other purposes during daytime hours), where it initially started at the earlier time of 4.42 p.m.. On April 4, 1970, however, it moved back to what had by then become BBC Radio 2, where it stayed until August 25, 1990 (throughout this time it was part of Sport on 2). From September 1 1990 to March 26, 1994 it was on the original BBC Radio 5, and since April 2 1994 it has been heard on BBC Radio 5 Live (on both of these networks it has been part of Sport on 5 but changed the name to Five Live Sport in 2006).
Presenters have included Eamonn Andrews (1950-1962), Des Lynam (1969-1978), Peter Jones (1968-1990), Mike Ingham (1979-1984), Ian Payne (1994-2000), Mark Pougatch (2000-)and John Inverdale (1988-1994), among many others, while the football results were originally read out by John Webster but, since 1974, have been heard in the distinctive voice of James Alexander Gordon (famous for pronouncing “Wanderers”, in the name of several football clubs, as “Wanderer-ers”). The programme, almost uniquely, has used the same theme music since its inception - “Out of the Blue”, written by Hubert Bath. This already sounded old-fashioned in the early 1970s, and it is said that Des Lyman prevented it from being dropped. Now, the theme has the status of a charming anachronism, a very British institution, amid the fast-paced modern style of the rest of Five Live.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I love wikipedia, and find it to be an interesting and invaluable resource. However, since you cannot rely on wikipedia being accurate 100% of the time (because perhaps the one time you check it, someone will have edited the page with errors - or other similar scenarios), I cannot say that I think it is more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.. However, what I can say is that, regardless of that fact- I think Wikipedia is a better resource due to its accessibility (not to mention thousands of articles that Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. would never deem worthy enough to fill their pages). In those terms accuracy isn’t my number one priority.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Although I agree that ‘Product A is better than product B’ statements should be left out, I do feel the comparison pages of certain products/software should contain which one of said products performed best after having been reviewed by experts.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Sorry, but everyone says you can’t trust Wikipedia, so I’m going to go with them. In college, if you use Wikipedia as a cited source, they won’t count the assignment. Again, sorry but no.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Whenever i need to know about the things i don’t know i wiki it.
Its awesome. Hats off for you guys. But i was thinking why don’t you guys make your website AJAX enabled it gonna rock.
But still I gonna say keep up the good work guys, you rock!!!
December 9th, 2007 at 4:43 am
@Lucas:
Sorry, but conservapedia.com is just a joke… They just throw all science overboard, just because they want to take the bible literaly. If you think you have to throw science overboard because otherwise you couldn’t be a Christian, than that’s just sad… Conservapedia thinks the earth can support 60 billion people. Thus, the people behind Conservapedia just don’t care about the environment. The environment is what we all live in. Conservapedia completely ignores the fact that ALREADY there are MAJOR problems because of the current size population. (Like: there’s a mass extiction event happening… at this very moment! Look it up in Wikipedia… lol.) Instead of trying to moderate having many children, they want to create as many babies as possible. As long as there are very poor people on this world, it’s not social to have many children. Simply because with every extra baby we will have less resources per person. (Only have a look at fresh water supplies. Many millions don’t have access to enough healthy water.) It’s as simple as that. I’d say have 1, max. 2 children. Conservapedia thinks evolution doesn’t exist. Conservapedia really loves pseudoscience. Etc.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:24 am
However people can go onto wikipedia an enter information that is false, or put rude and vile remarks within the articles, I have found that they are all ways quickly retracted, refuted, and or expunged. I have never found a lack in wikipedia’s information, which has constantly been factual and accurate, with much detail. If your in college, you shouldn’t use Wikipedia as a cited source, as wikipedia is a collection of information from primary sources, not a primary source itself, but you can use the sources wikipedia uses for your own wich will usually work. So I do trust Wikipedia, and I think its finally time others did as well.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:42 am
I use it as my first port of call when cataloging books. Often there is material I don’t have a grasp on and Wikepedia starts me off on a trail of discovery. It is important to use it as a compliment to other sources not as the only source of authority. This is particularly important for students when doing assignments.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:50 am
i will like to help, as good as I can. what do I have to do now?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:57 am
thank you SO much for everything! you have helped me many times, I hope you will do something, chance the world!
buy
from a little clever dinorsaur-geni. -ME (nine years old)
December 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I’ve used (english) wikipedia for my medical studies the last two years, I must say it has been more helpful than all my course literature combined. At least when it comes natural sciences, wikipedia is definately trustworthy. But ofcourse, it’s a part of the wiki concept to read articles with open eyes.
/swedish med student
December 9th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Most of my teachers think that Wikipedia is useless, and has a lot of fasle information. I have found that true on many occasions. However, lately when I have been comparing articles to real encyclopedis, the misakes and commentary of the authors have decreased drastically compared to ever a year or two ago. So I believe that Wikipedia is not a fake source, but a growing free encyclopedia with room for improvement.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I can’t trust wikikpedia because when you look something up then, when you to the bottom of the page their is a link that says edit. So you never know if the information is correct or not. Not that long ago, there was a news report saying that somone has changed the infomation about someone high in the government.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Well you see, I am doing a school research project and my teachers have said that I should not use this site anymore. They believe that the idea that ANYONE can edit the aricles wont help me much. So, I would say, No, i don’ trust this site and neither do teachers.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:23 am
People who are against wikipedia are people who don’t understand the usefullness of the internet. Older generations are trained to think that if it is on a website, then it is wrong. To them I say, I dare you to intentionally write a falsehood on a wikipedia page and count, in minutes, how long your inaccuracy lasts.
Wikipedia works, and the internet community works. I bet if you looked at how computer-savvy each of these commentors were, you’d find a strong divide between pre- and post- internet revolution.
Speaking as a college student and a product of the internet revolution, I say: Learn about wikipedia before you start ranting falsely and ignorantly against it.
And if you really don’t like it, leave and pay 600$ for 23 books that are just as wrong.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Let’s just keep things in perspective. The objective of this page isn’t just to convince people of Wikipedia’s validity. It’s to make them so convinced that they’ll open their wallets to keep the site running.
And the fact that it had to reach for an obscure German article to attempt this is quite telling.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:39 am
I love all this controversy!
Wikipedia is great beacause it is the easiest way for people around the world to obtain knowledge. It’s free and it is for all, and that’s how knowledge is supposed to be.
There is also one thing that detractors usually forget: Wikipedia is a work in progress, and if there is support and interest from persons, it will eventually be a more reliable source than ANY other encyclopedia; in fact, right now, most of the times it is a very reliable source.
So keep the good work, Wiki!
December 10th, 2007 at 7:56 am
“# C. Watt Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Too many people don’t understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be authoritative. It provides an overview and points to more in-depth sources. My wife teaches at a university and must constantly remind her students that Wikipedia is a fine place to start, but not acceptable as a source. The most valuable research tools on any Wikipedia page are the links and sources at the bottom of the page. You should never quote an encyclopedia, written or online, in any research paper anyway.”
Here is the most accurate statement written in this discussion.
Academia ought to take note. Stop whining and start contributing.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Why is wikipedia fake? Fake information? Isn’t that why they ask for a source… I personally think there may be SOME error but, no one is perfect… * I think people who are against wikipedia either think it’s to easy and want people to have to work harder, or they are just looking for something to complain about.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Don’t believe in anything blindy, but listen to everything.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Technical article are very lucid. If you already know the topic, you can understand them very well. Of course an encyclopedia is not a textbook, but authors can be a little bit more goodwilled and licid.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
It is incredibly frightening to me that a med student would use Wikipedia in their studies. Incredibly, genuinely frightening. I sincerely hope that you never become a doctor, as there is no telling what sort of damage you could inflict on someone by using Wikipedia as a medical reference.
Utterly terrifying.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Of course, the German Encyclopedias they used to make comparisons could be crap, unlike Britannica.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Splarty, you’re rootin-tootin right. Wikipedia is so unreliable & frequently so downright wrong it’s scary. And you don’t need to go adding wrong info to entries, Zach, there are millions there already!
December 10th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Wikipedia is very accurate when the best minds come together to work on an accurate article, but when it is inaccurate (usually due to abuse) it can be VERY inaccurate until it is fixed! When using Wikipedia for research always, ALWAYS, follow links to cited sources to make sure that the information you are using is accurate and not in a state of defacement, slander, or other types of Wikipedia abuse. I love wikipedia but it’s always important to understand the shortcomings that come with the “immeidately available and anybody can edit” format. Despite that shortcoming, it still beats the pants off the paper versions of encyclopedias any day!
December 10th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Seriously, congratulations, 50 of 2 million articles are up to snuff. That only leaves 1.9 million + to go. Idiots.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Wikipedia is a very good innovation and can be extremely informative. However it is clear there are some special interest groups, some of them distinctively sinister, who methodically erase information. For that reason I no longer try to post anything more than minor changes.
As a university assignment marker for BA and Masters students I refuse to accept any references from Wikipedia.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Although you’ve already heard this about 250 times already, thank you, Wikipedia. I do not edit Wikipedia myself, but have used it to look up information on Wikipedia many times, from Jacques-Louis David to electrolytes. (High-School Student, yes) Thanks again.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Research shouldn’t end with Wikipedia. But there is no harm in it being an excellent starting place. Where else will you find millions of articles on virtually any topic? I don’t know where else to find out (quickly) exactly what a 4:2:0 color profile is, or what the basic teachings of Scientology are. If it is not 100% accurate, at least it gives you an idea.
The internet is changing how people gain knowledge, and Wikipedia is an enormous (and important) part of that shift. Start there, and go anywhere.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I read Wikipedia articles more carefully than other encyclopedia articles because I can rewrite sentences for better readability, correct spelling and add additional information.
I also love Wikipedia’s currency.
In the aftermath of the Indian Ocean earthquake near Indonesia, the best Web sites to track new information was Wikipedia’s article on this disaster. The article started about 4 to 6 hours after the first tsunami. From then on the updates were faster than once a minute with lots of links to online news reports. The article also contained great graphics created by government experts on geology. The current article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_ocean_earthquake
I love the fact that Wikipedia has trivia.
There is a nice little article giving the orgin of the phrase “girlie men” and its use by Schwarzenegger in the 1988 Presidential election. Britannica Online doesn’t have this phrase. Some may claim that “girlie men” is too trivial to be in an encyclopedia. However, I want an encyclopedia will has everything I (and you) want in it, not just what some editor thinks is important.
I love my step grandchildren, not because they are perfect, but because they are my step grandchildren.
I love Wikipedia, not because its perfect, but because I have made changes in Wikipedia and making changes makes Wikipedia my encyclopedia. It’s a personal thing.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:05 am
While I don’t regularly use the information in Wilkipedia’s articles, the list of external sources and works cited are always helpful.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Wikipedia is a good place to go for more obscure information. It falls far short, however, as a neutral resource of encyclopedic quality. As long as Wikipedia allows a small group of extremists (as in the case of “Passive Smoking”) to form a so-called consensus to fashion an article as a piece of propaganda, it will never be taken very seriously.
I appreciate the mediation process, but the arbitration is pretty much useless. These people need to be schooled in “NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW”.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Wikipedia is a very good innovation and can be extremely informative. I like Wikipedia..
Have a Good Day!
Wabmaster Seo
mukeshpra@gmail.com
December 11th, 2007 at 6:40 am
To make it really simple:
All the criticism of Wikipedia is sour grapes.
I have done back-to-back comparisons of
Enc. Britannica vs Wikipedia for few subjects I
know I am an expert in. Wiki won every time in
usability and completeness. In comparison,
Britannica sucks.
Where W. starts to suck is in the politically
correct/controversial topics where the sheer amount
of references and points of view makes it very
difficult for a reader to graps not only the
prevaling opinion but even the factual arguments
being made.
A tangential point: it would be lovely to be able
in
at some point to start merging topics/submissions
in different languages. I’ve come accross several
topics that are covered “1000 times better”
the non-English language of Wikipedia.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:51 am
This is exactly what I have been trying to get my friends and teachers to believe, now, I have solid evidence (in the form of this page)!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:02 am
It is very much useful site for all kind of people all over the world.
Simply Superb.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I encourage anyone to read Bob Kerns’ comment higher up. Very wise words and spot on, Bob!
When properly used, Wikipedia can be extremely insightful and contribute to critical evaluation of knowledge. A quick glance on the talk-page and the history list of an article gives one a good idea of any possibly controversial or fringe aspects. How many authors have contributed? Is it almost a solo-project with few peers contributing and reviewing? Does the history-page show that hundreds of people have checked it out over several months, and is it mostly spelling and grammar edits or additions and clarifications? Are there edit-wars going on? Do a quick comparison between the current version and one of 100 edits ago: did any numbers or anything significant change, or change back-and-forth? Did the people who made the changes substantiate their edits? How many editors are involved in the controversy? How persistent are they? Which side is most careful in referencing their edits? All this is valuable information to judge the importance of the subject, the importance of the controversy if there is one, and to get an idea of the mindset of people on either side.
Has there ever been a time in history when this kind of meta-information was available? Teaching children and students to properly use (USE, not disregard) Wikipedia will be for the benefit of all.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I don’t trust wikipedia because they lie
December 11th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
i love wikipedia, it offers an enormous amount of good information. However, if some stupid editor/publisher or whatever goes on and puts inaccurate information on there, big deal. You should be looking up your informational research more than one place to make sure it’s accurate anyway.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Wikipedia holds alot of information, and doesn’t require a fancy degree or corporate membership to contribute to its accumulated knowledge. It is thus more accessible, more up-to-date, more democratic, and yes, more open to abuse. As long as people continue making an effort to keep the content factual with some proper referencing, this tool will gain in reputation.
Credit and applause to those who strive to share knowledge with others (particularly volunteers).
As for me, when I teach a course, I discuss Wikipedia as an ‘index’ from which students can obtain leads and general ideas on a topic, but should then pursue reviewed sources when citing information for academic work. It’s as easy as that.
Carry on,
M. Duggan
December 11th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I’m a pharmacist and i access wikipedia all the time its been very helpful to me in my job and i think wikipedia is the future of the encyclopedia. The criticism wikipedia gets is only a push forward for wikipedia to become better.
Good Luck
December 12th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Wikipedia has given so much info everyone in my class used this website for our science project thank you wikipedia!
December 12th, 2007 at 1:57 am
At least, in light of the sharp drop in reading amongst children, it provides an ADD/40 second attention span-compliant form of conveying vaguely factual information.
One day we will all be part of Wikipedia. Prepare to be subsumed.
December 12th, 2007 at 4:41 am
It’s just too bad that Wikipedia censors articles.
December 12th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Of course Wikipedia contains errors. Every “authoritative” text does. Those who criticize it should instead correct the errors they find. It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:34 am
As a teacher I do think that Wikipedia is a more valid source of info for my students than just some random website. As far as quality goes, some articles are great and some are biased, but so are many traditional sources of information, like history books. Just like there’s a great number of books that shouldn’t be on the shelfs - a great number of articles should be re-written, but given that, wikipedia is still a great place to start researching something and a get a general idea about a topic.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:37 am
this is simply superb site .i collect lot of inf from this site with in limited span of time .
present situation time is most valuable this site helps me a lot to save my time
thankyou so much to wikipedia
December 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Hi,
Needless to say that Wikipedia contains enormous information in it and that too very well written and user friendly. It never uses such word/sentence that is not understood by the reader. It is very informative and useful… Its like providing firs hand information.. It is like “You name it and it gives the result”. Its really very goood and very helpful… No words to say how much it is useful… I woud like to thank the team who has created such a wonderful thing.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“Wikipedia is a shrine of knowledge, full of fact, and not biased by opinion”
December 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I hope that all those who take time to complain about inacuracies in Wikipedia, will also take the time to correct these inacuracies. Whining in itself is of no use. The fact is that Wikipedia is the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever and it is still growing explosively.
Wikipedia has entered into a battle with conservatism because it is such a fundamentally new and innovative way of sharing knowledge. I think we will see the real value of Wikipedia when the conservatives have “lost” their holy crusade against Wikipedia and Wikipedia becomes publicly understood and accepted, so that even more educated minds will start making corrections rather than wasting their energy on whining, complaining and even vandalism.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
For the record, i put *on purpose* (just for fun) a wrong information that it’s quite hard to detect and completelly misleading the topics. And to the date this fake information is still present on wikipedia.
So, the question “can you trust on wikipedia?” also means “can you trust on me?”.
Of course i did it just for test but there are persons and even organization working on editing wikipedia and giving their very own truth.
The power of Disinformation.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I really like this column since im sick of people saying how wikipedia is just a missleading site by people who want to write something that others will see. wiki is an awesome source of information and if there is something in here that is changed of wrong, people who actually care about this site fix it. it isn’t made up of know-it-alls it’s made of a variety of people who know a considerable amount about different things.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
sorry, misstyped some things, you probably get the idea though.
THAT MISSTYPE DOES NOT REFLECT ON WIKIPEDIA
December 12th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I often am enabled to trustith thy website, butte am often forbode by ye educators. For I know that thisk hath informativeness unt value. But respected it naught be when they speakith lies and falicies. Butte fear naught my aquils, for there cometh a day of retribution.
Continue O’ workers, struggle on
Zoltan
December 13th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Wikipedia is great. It gets straight to the point, has a table of contents, and doesn’t make me want to bash my head on my keyboard out of frustration. Wikipedia had information on everything and I consult it for basic research on random day-to-day questions. Its at the top of my favorites list.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:34 am
this site is not very good because i searched all cities and towns of pakistan and in result it doesn’t show all the cities and towns, and the city which is not shown in this site when i searched it induvidualy in wikipedia search then it shows, if this city is added in this site then why it doen’t show in list of all cities?
December 13th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Wikipedia is a great preliminary source, since it generally gives an excellent overview of the subject matter and can direct you to other resources, but I would never use it as a cited source in a serious academic work.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Who the hell looks shit up about pakistan? I don’t think many people would know. Its good for some base and the links, but when I try to edit the incorrect information under computer science and stuff it gets reverted back to the false crap. Wiki should let people who know what they’re doing edit not random people.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Who says Professors think Wikipedia is unreliable? My Professor who is about to retire; being so old considers Wikipedia to be a good starting point to gather at least some basic knowledge on a subject. You can continue to search for the info with other sources but I believe nowadays the first place I go to search for a term, a year, history, person etc is Wikipedia.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Wikipedia is a platform, it is neither truth or herersy, a dynamic portal of presenting the best held beliefs and information on a subject or idea at that paricular time. It is open to the global scrutiny of everyone who participates in the web community and by this method all erroneous material is corrected or removed.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Yes, Wikipedia is very un reliable they should be tooken off the internet as im typing this into the comment box, ive been lied to, so many times by the people that just edit the page at there own will, ive failed many science projects by the lies….. you guys should be ashamed
December 15th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Yes, i Agree With Bobby On That One, This Site Is Very Unreliable, People Do Edit The Site At There Own Free Will, It Is Hard To Trust This Site, Sorry Guys, I Just Dont Like It.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Yes, I agree with bobby 110% this site has let many of my students down and it sickens me that people can edit the page at there own free will and put a load of crap on there, just my opinion 2 thumbs down
December 15th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
this site is accurate for the most part you jsut have to trust people really because this site is to hmm what’s the word, open for anyone to edit the page it is misleading at some cases and you should be tooken off, either that or protect your pages a little bit more from liars
December 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I agree with katie and bobby both, they got the pin point of what i was going to comment, please try to have a little more protection from people that just put a load of crap and say its the truth….
December 15th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
hmmm im just gonna say this, this site is the best!!!! i think it rocks and is a very reliable source!!! ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺
December 16th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Trust, but verify.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Wikipedia is no substitute for real research, and never will be. It should serve to complement other research and study. It would be better if people stopped comparing this way.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Wikipedia (by definition, due to open editorship) is graffiti on a wall. Sometimes it’s interesting, but it’s not a valid source for any serious research.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
wikipedia is great!!!!
i just luv it!!!!!
all d info is given in a systematic manner(so wat if some of it is not accurate?)
keep up the great job,guys!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 am
For all those who are concerned about “research”, Wikipedia in fact IS very suitable if not fantastic for serious research. I’m a final year physics (quantum information) phd student with a number of peer review publications and I can assure you I have thoroughly benefited from reading Wikipedia’s articles on topics relevant to my research and publications. If people find Wikipedia not suitable for research it is probably because they don’t know how to research in the first place and instead put the blame on Wiki. No one with a sound research skill would expect to read a single article from any where (no matter how reputable the source is) and then regurgitate it as a statement of fact. You always refer to multiple sources to give you a holistic picture. It is true that you would never site Wikipedia on a serious research paper, but nor will you site any other encyclopaedias for that matter even if you paid for them. No research could be considered serious if it only relies on encyclopaedic knowledge no matter how reputable the source, you have to delve into peer reviewed journals.
Wikipedia is great because you are almost guaranteed to find articles on most topics and they are generally well written, easy to read and more importantly provide you with more links and references for follow-up. So, far from being an unreliable source of information, Wikipedia is usually my first line of attack for any problem. Once I get a feel for the topic and get some general ideas I can then easily refer to more specialised articles in peer reviewed journals.
And just for the records, I don’t think there is much debate about the success of Wikipedia and the like in an evermore interconnected world. It is simply the next logical and natural step in the development of our global village.