Motoring0 min ago
Wikipedia
How trustworthy is Wikipedia? I've heard a few people on here say they don't neccessarily trust it. I often pop onto it if i need the answer to something quite quickly, or i want to find out a bit of interesting trivia about a film or song i really like, but can i really believe what i read? who regulates it?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pinkkitty. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Many don't trust it because it can be edited by anyone.
Yet they trust some source like Britannica more, because they have a few researchers that get paid. Nobody seems to think that perhaps they don't get things perfect either.
Wikipedia is great for what it's good at. Quick facts, bits of useful information, on anything.
The entire idea is very socialist and great too -- anyone can contribute! (Though I am aware of the correction nazis that patrol.) This ultimately leads to a good situation, since with enough people working on it and contributing, the good will outway the bad.
For more serious uses of it, you should check your sources, just like with any encyclopaedia.
Yet they trust some source like Britannica more, because they have a few researchers that get paid. Nobody seems to think that perhaps they don't get things perfect either.
Wikipedia is great for what it's good at. Quick facts, bits of useful information, on anything.
The entire idea is very socialist and great too -- anyone can contribute! (Though I am aware of the correction nazis that patrol.) This ultimately leads to a good situation, since with enough people working on it and contributing, the good will outway the bad.
For more serious uses of it, you should check your sources, just like with any encyclopaedia.
Part 1
Wikipedia is good source for quick fact-checks but be careful about blindly accepting information provided by it. In The Times of 21 July 2006, an article stated "The phenomenal but unreliable online encyclopedia is best used with a healthy dose of scepticism". Richard Dixon, Chief Revise Editor of the same paper, wrote on 2nd March 2007..."Wikipedia lacks accountability, authority, scholarly credentials, accuracy and scrupulousness."
Even its co-founder, Jimmy Wales, himself says: "If what you are after is �Who won the World Cup in 1986?', it's going to be fine. If you want to know something more esoteric, or something controversial, you should probably use a second reference - at least." The Wikipedia website itself states: "All information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatever."
If you bear these truths in mind, you may often get good basic information from it, as I sometimes do myself.
Considering that anyone - literally, anyone - can create an entry and anyone else - literally, anyone else - can edit it, you will realise how insubstantial its information might be. Treat Wikipedia with caution - great caution - as its creator advised.
Wikipedia is good source for quick fact-checks but be careful about blindly accepting information provided by it. In The Times of 21 July 2006, an article stated "The phenomenal but unreliable online encyclopedia is best used with a healthy dose of scepticism". Richard Dixon, Chief Revise Editor of the same paper, wrote on 2nd March 2007..."Wikipedia lacks accountability, authority, scholarly credentials, accuracy and scrupulousness."
Even its co-founder, Jimmy Wales, himself says: "If what you are after is �Who won the World Cup in 1986?', it's going to be fine. If you want to know something more esoteric, or something controversial, you should probably use a second reference - at least." The Wikipedia website itself states: "All information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatever."
If you bear these truths in mind, you may often get good basic information from it, as I sometimes do myself.
Considering that anyone - literally, anyone - can create an entry and anyone else - literally, anyone else - can edit it, you will realise how insubstantial its information might be. Treat Wikipedia with caution - great caution - as its creator advised.
Part 2
Several Wikipedia cases have arisen involving false information provided as a prank...or worse. A certain Captain, Sir Alan McIlwraith KBE, DSO, MC, was a decorated hero who had served with the SAS around the world according to Wikipedia; in truth, it was revealed the man concerned was an untitled help-desk employee of Dell Computers in Glasgow! He had never even served in the British Army. His entry has now been removed.
There are other similar examples of total falsehoods which have had to be deleted such as that concerning the Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin. He stood accused - correctly - of lying that he had flown combat missions in Vietnam. He hadn't. That truth was later removed by one of his supporters. So, outright lies may easily be published there and uncomfortable truths removed. Also, self-elected administrators/editors - especially those involved in areas concerning religion - remove valid edits which contradict their positions.
Larry Sanger, the other co-founder of Wikipedia stated in April 2007, "There are many problems afflicting Wikipedia, from serious management problems to an often dysfunctional community, to frequently unreliable content and to a whole series of scandals. While Wikipedia is still quite useful and an amazing phenomenon, I have come to the view that it is also broken beyond repair."
In March 2007, for instance, it was revealed that a prominent contributor to it, who claimed to be a university professor, was in fact a college drop-out aged 24!
The resource - whilst it was a wonderful concept - simply cannot be trusted to be accurate. Use it, by all means, but treat what it says with a large dose of salt!
Several Wikipedia cases have arisen involving false information provided as a prank...or worse. A certain Captain, Sir Alan McIlwraith KBE, DSO, MC, was a decorated hero who had served with the SAS around the world according to Wikipedia; in truth, it was revealed the man concerned was an untitled help-desk employee of Dell Computers in Glasgow! He had never even served in the British Army. His entry has now been removed.
There are other similar examples of total falsehoods which have had to be deleted such as that concerning the Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin. He stood accused - correctly - of lying that he had flown combat missions in Vietnam. He hadn't. That truth was later removed by one of his supporters. So, outright lies may easily be published there and uncomfortable truths removed. Also, self-elected administrators/editors - especially those involved in areas concerning religion - remove valid edits which contradict their positions.
Larry Sanger, the other co-founder of Wikipedia stated in April 2007, "There are many problems afflicting Wikipedia, from serious management problems to an often dysfunctional community, to frequently unreliable content and to a whole series of scandals. While Wikipedia is still quite useful and an amazing phenomenon, I have come to the view that it is also broken beyond repair."
In March 2007, for instance, it was revealed that a prominent contributor to it, who claimed to be a university professor, was in fact a college drop-out aged 24!
The resource - whilst it was a wonderful concept - simply cannot be trusted to be accurate. Use it, by all means, but treat what it says with a large dose of salt!
-- answer removed --
a study a couple of years ago concluded that it was as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica
http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Anyone can get onto it and write rubbish, but it tends to get noticed and removed quickly (I've occasionally done it myself). Its advantage over print encyclopedia is that it's much quicker. On the day of the 7/7 bombings in London, it had a page about them up and running that afternoon. It'd take a print encyclopedia months to do that.
You should always try to get confirmation from somewhere else (and NOT just another website that's copied and pasted the original Wikipedia article) but you should do that anyway in any serious research. On most matters I've found it to be entirely reliable.
http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Anyone can get onto it and write rubbish, but it tends to get noticed and removed quickly (I've occasionally done it myself). Its advantage over print encyclopedia is that it's much quicker. On the day of the 7/7 bombings in London, it had a page about them up and running that afternoon. It'd take a print encyclopedia months to do that.
You should always try to get confirmation from somewhere else (and NOT just another website that's copied and pasted the original Wikipedia article) but you should do that anyway in any serious research. On most matters I've found it to be entirely reliable.
-- answer removed --
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Labour's Polling Collapse Is Historic
News14 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
