Wikipedia,encyclopedia Of The Net Do you wikipedia is as accurate as en...

[viplanet 0]

Over the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia, the free, open-access encyclopedia, has taken a great deal of flak in the press for problems related to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability

.there is a rumour that wiki is going to stop the feature by which all users can edit its information
http://news.a.com.com/

Notice from rejected:

Quotes added.. member warned

Edited December 17, 2005 by rejected (see edit history)

[Saint_Michael 3]

yeah i heard about that as well about some guy post false info on this other guy or something like that. but i would to say though that some of it is accurate ow much I couldn't tell you due to the fact their is like a few billion word combinations that you could use on a search function.

[iwuvcookies 0]

I don't know if i could trust it. I was looking at a Britney Spears website and they have cited several songs that might be on her new album Original Doll from Wikipedia. I'm like how does a encyclopedia have information like that before the official press releases come out or some leak. So that just leads to one conclusion. Gossip.

[snlildude87 0]

No. Wikipedia is pretty accurate when it comes to supplying information. It's that one thing that caused all this stuff. Check this out: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

The reason why Wikipedia can give you stuff before it comes out (the Britney Spears thing) is that everyone can edit it. I'm guessing that someone who works for Britney Spear's recording company came to Wikipedia and wrote about it. :-/

[Nani Cheri 0]

Today I occasionally read in the newspaper that in a test Wikipedia compared to the 'largest' and less faults containing encyclopedia that exists has actually kinda good results. Wikipedia had something llike 160 faults compared with 127 of THE Encyclopedia. Wikipedia gives a good job according to the newspapers in the Netherlands... I obtain much information from Wikipedia for school, but some idiots edit the text incorrectly and try to be funny, and for this reason they'll probably will add registrationsystems I think..

[CroSpartacus 0]

Wikipedia is good because it has lots of information on everything, however I wouldn't use it as an Objective source. Lots of bias can be in some articles.

[amhso 0]

They have lots of boks too. wikibooks.org or something. check it out!

[freesoul 0]

I love the Wikipedia. It has been so useful for me in the past in doing school projects. If they close dow the feature for anyone to edit the pages then there is no point in calling it 'wiki' pedia. But as risky as it is exposing this much customisability to all users it can be advategeous too if people were to takethis in good spirits and fill in the details together. <Sigh) We do lack unity these days!

[corzel 0]

Wikipedia's problem is not that it has become more flawed as it's grown. But it has become such an incomparably useful resource for so many that its flaws are more regrettable. Look back two or three years, and you'd find it informative and accurate in spots, but plainly lacking in key areas. Today, it's astonishingly comprehensive, with standards of accuracy and balance that very often match or exceed media that are far more established, and a regard for transparency that would put any news outlet I know to shame. We should continue thinking of ways to improve Wikipedia; it's a phenomenal public resource. But we must turn our attention to educating people how to evaluate all sources of information as the amount of it proliferates.

[sportytalk 0]

Hmmmm, I thought this rumour would come out eventually or that someone would post incorrect information on the site. It's just a shame that people had to abuse the site. It's a wonderful site and in my opinion, it should stay set up in the way that users *can* edit the information. Currently, it is updated almost straight away, because as soon as news items or other events happen, users can edit as soon as they get internet access, meaning it's most accurate.I've used wikipedia a lot through my school days helping out with research tasks and/or homework queries. I hope it doesn't disable user's permission to post or edit the pages.This is just my opinion on this matter.

[Sprnknwn 0]

I hope this won?t happen. User?s addittion are the disctintive thing about Wikipedia and if it?s so good is clearly because of that. It would be awful if it became "commercial" or driven by any editorial interest.

[Dart-kun 0]

I actually never liked Wikipedia, mostly because I didn't trust the info, though I thought it was always a good idea. But im not sure if they would really take away the ability to edit the info. I mean, isn't that the main point of it? But no, some idiots have to abuse it, had to play around with it, and wreak a perfectly good source of info for most.

[arnz 0]

Wikipedia is a pretty good resource to read, but the only thing I'd probably wouldnt trust is that the fact that an unregistered user could just come in and change information to something totally inaccurate or defaming.What i'd probably suggest is to keep the edits to registered users and perhaps have moderators check the information or so, but I'm guessing i'd probably cost a lot or take up a persons time to moderate whats supposed to be an online encyclopedia.

[Gyad 0]

Wikipedia is a really good source of information. I can understand why they want to remove the feature that lets everyone edit it. The more people that can edit it, the more problems will arise. They should just limit it to a selected few people to avoid problems.I wouldn't want to read fake articles anyways.

[Find3r 0]

You need to make a little research, so go to wikipedia and find it!!

 

and if you became a member of wikipedia you can edit the post of others!

 

its totaly free!!

 

https://www.wikipedia.org/

 

i use all the time, i always find what i want!!

Notice from mayank:

There's already a post on this. Merging this post into that one.

Please make a search before making any new topics