Is Wikipedia A Reliable Source Of Knowledge

[H.O.D 0]

wikipedia has made life much easier for a lot of people who wanted to know about few things in a much faster manner. before wikipedia came on the scene the internet was used for research but the few good sources that people had were not so good, and the sites that had goo information were largely unknown to people. besides that, based on the type of research, people had to look for different kinds of sites. wikipedia came and solved all these problems. now the best possible information (in most cases) is brought together and put in a single site so that everyone can find it much easier. and no matter what the topic of research might be, people can look for the common site which is wikipedia.

 

the question of whether it is reliable has been asked from when the site was started. i would say its definitely reliable, but again i would add the tag, in most cases. i won't use wikipedia for sensitive topics like religion, politics, etc because here there is a higher chance of wrong information being fed. for safer topics like mathematics, science, technology, etc it is a good source. and i use wikipedia as an entertainment portal too. it has all the movie reviews, tv episode summaries (in most cases each episode has its own page with ratings) and dvd release dates, etc which is very good info for someone seeking to kill time.

 

so i would just say wikipedia is a great place to be and for most of the topics we can be sure that the information being provided is definitely reliable. for sensitive topics, you have to keep your eyes open for what you're reading.

[mahesh2k 0]

Now that we're talking about public encyclopedia's like wikipedia. People need to understand following encylcopedias are not at all credible. - Uncyclopedia - ConservepediaUncyclopedia is loaded with humour and satire, sarcasm content. So don't take things as they're it's just for fun from those who are bored and want to have fun with information. Conservepedia is run by creationist and if you check their references at the end of articles they're self serving. It means that these articles are referenced by relative creationism content. Make sure you never fall for information from conservepedia as it's not peer reviewed and even peer accepted. Comparing these two encyclopedia's wikipedia seems to be more credible atleast. Especially when we compare conservepedia and wikipedia, wikipedia is more credible with references and if there is any clash of manipulated information then it is discussed over talk and village pump. But in case of conservepedia their mission and content don't bother digging deep about their claims and content.

[H.O.D 0]

uncyclopedia gets boring after a while, although it's good for a few quick laughs. i don't think it even deserves to be compared with wikipedia. conservepedia scares off non-US people people with its logo! as for the articles in there from what i've seen it's nothing compared to what wikipedia has to offer. so let us stick to talking about wikipedia for now. it's got millions of articles ranging from highly useful to totally meaningless and if you compare it with those other two sites you mentioned, it deserves a few more points for not losing its roots in order to face the competition and since a lot of people use wikipedia, its easy to catch people who use wikipedia articles in their research directly without mentioning the source. so lets not doubt the credibility of wikipedia and enjoy it while it lasts!

[Quatrux 4]

I used to read uncyclopedia for a while, it's quite fun, usually I got to such links posted on a forum or in a chat. I also like to look around encyclopedia dramatica as you can find very funny articles But you need to understand that those kind of sites are for fun :)I stopped trying to write in topics about religion, politics and etc. too and just sometimes read the news or some articles which usually or longer or even watch some documentary movie from the "New World Order" series which sometimes are scary and sometimes funny ;)Usually there is no point to be involved in discussions about religion and politics in some kind of a forum as it goes nowhere, of course it depends on members who are posting there, I usually for several years now try to avoid them :PI don't even read about religion or politics in wikipedia, unless I search for something specific, about history of something or for some facts I need for something. It's good that wikipedia has references.

[H.O.D 0]

Many people keep saying that its good that wikipedia has references and I think we must applaud the people who take the time to update the article and mention the references as well. some articles seem to have over 50-100 references that makes the article seem too long!

Usually there is no point to be involved in discussions about religion and politics in some kind of a forum as it goes nowhere, of course it depends on members who are posting there, I usually for several years now try to avoid them smile.gif

yes actually there is no point in discussing these topics after a while before it leads to nowhere and usually the members involved just keep flaming at each other or end up irritating the whole forum. so such topics, although important, should be kept in control at all times. that is best for all the members involved and maintains a safe environment in the forum.

as for such topics in wikipedia, its best to steer clear of them too because anyone has the power to edit them, and although there is a good chance that they will be reverted back to their original state, in the time the fake news is posted it may be a bit damaging. so its best to stay away from them at wikipedia too!

[mahesh2k 0]

Speaking of references and reliability. Hows is wikipedia comparable to britanica and some other paid encyclopedia sites or software ? I heard that recently microsoft dropped encarta project and because of this i think there is one less commercial site. I think without commercial sites it gets harder to find people who update regular content. Wikipedia has enough updated content for generalized topics and sub-topics. But if wikipedia starts to offer paid position like KDE/Gnome then i'm sure there will be lot of credible information gathering because of this. With money or rewards people help more and more to such sources than free.

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

Commercial encyclopedias are definitely more reliable and trustworthy, but they can never match the range of content that Wikipedia provides. What's more, they touch only those topics which they deem important to them, and not to the public. For example, there's a commercial encyclopedia (dunno if its Britannica or something else) which doesn't have a mention of Wikipedia in its list of articles. They think talking about Wikipedia is a waste of time and thus they have not put in an article about it! On the other hand, Wikipedia has detailed articles about all the major and minor encyclopedias and these are regularly updated as well. If this is the situation when its a non-paying site, then I think there's no real need to start offering payments, as its already very good. If the editors at wikipedia feel they could do with better contributions, then sure they could implement a payment system. That is a bit doubtful though, unless they get a lot of private funding or/and donations, as they don't make a lot of money from the site (no ads!!!)

[grim reaper1666 0]

depends on the material really people can edit it at will and put whatever they want into the site. sometimes i notice spelling mistakes and correct them so in that respect if the information entered has spelling mistakes then how do we know that the rest of the information is not even trustable. when your looking for information on the internet check multiple sources if you rely on one source you might get incorrect information.

[yordan 10]

when your looking for information on the internet check multiple sources if you rely on one source you might get incorrect information.

If I trust you I will say what you do, I will check multiple sources.If I don't trust the unique source you are, I will check a single source, which is your opinion!

[grim reaper1666 0]

that post gives me an error insert coffee or beer since i don't just go to wikipedia i search on multiple search engines using the advanced search to find multiple sources of information. i occasionally go on wikipedia and correct some of their spelling mistakes because of the error people often make and then don't realise when they come back to that page later.

[aloKNsh 0]

i dun see wikipedia as an reliable source of knowledge as its not that authentaic i mean it can be modified by everyone and anyone..... but still you can always rely on it. Its no doubt the biggest but also it contains some of the bull shits in there. You will find some not real not known facts also there. Its really disgusting to know how much people can hate others because in of the article as i was searching for it. It was a 2 party article i mean related to politicaians. I got some of the material but the other was somewhat i cant believe. Now to the matter they will all false knowledge i knew em and also its proved i mean the other party just made the other party or tried to make em down so put the false records in there. Now the persons who dun know about them i am sure they might be swayed by the reasons given there and also there was no one to listen to my petition to make it right. NOw i dont dare to make em right rather inform the apporopriate authority about the artcile and believe me it took a major action against the other party i was kept annonymous (thanks to them) and now its all ok. I think there should be some one to keep an eye on the topics posted there, but its also immpossible to keep an eye on each and every article being posted there but still we can have some of the arctiles rectified. There are millions of people posting around the world now its immpossible to keep an eye on every one but they can alsways take the help of other like divide the whole wikipedia into segments and give some to the right society to keep an eye on them.

[yordan 10]

i dun see wikipedia as an reliable source of knowledge ..... but still you can always rely on it.

Do you mean that it is not reliable but it is reliable ? Please, you are free to express your own opinion, but at least try to be clear according to yourself : yes or no ?