At my school we have to do regular reports and presentations and most teacher (oddly only the older teachers) will not allow use to use Wikipedia because anybody can write and article. I have never found an untrustworthy articles. Please tell me if you think Wikipedia is trustworthy.
OMG I was sooooo going to post a debate about this, you bastard! anyways, I am on the fence with this one, considering it's a peer-to-peer edit system, which means that some things in there are inaccurate, but for the most part, they have sources, and it's not all that bad with the whole "i'ma edit this to make my side the obvious better side" type thing... wow that made no sense...
I've tried to enter crap on wikipedia, but I always get in trouble for it. Most people who enter facts on wikipedia are intellectuals who know what they're talking about, so I trust it. They monitor the pages, though
yeah, as they have been saying, the pages are heavily monitored, and while anyone can edit them, anyone else can re-edit them properly and correct the page. ive never seen anything incorrect on the pages that has stood out to me. id trust it.
i don't because i once found an artical on paul revier saying he had 6 sons 4 daughters, 3 dogs, and 16 trees. wow i would trust it if you read another artical first and see the relations. if there are none don't bother. OHHH YAAA DON'T SHOW YOUR SIG!
I trust it, I've always trusted it, before and after I knew about the editing. I know they watch these things, because I had a friend make an article about someone's XBL Gamertag, it was deleted within 5 minutes. Also, it has those words 'citation needed' by some things that are questionable.
Can you trust Wikipedia 100% of the time? No. Can you trust the reliable resources linked at the bottom of the page? Yes.
I have faith in wikipedia. I remember last year I had JAYclahs at my place and neither of us had done our science brochure, due in the following day. I went onto Wiki and pretty much ctrl C & P'd it on to the brochure. For mine, I did some editing and made it look pretty. For his it still read wikipediaish. He got 10/10 and I got 9/10. Although frustrated I was happy to recieve an A with minimal effort. I'd still use wikipedia and trust it, but it helps to use other sources as well, just to be sure.
That sums it up. I like to edit wikipedia, both for fun (writing nonsense) and to actually be constructive when i see something wrong or something gramatically messed up, but when i mess something up or write something nonsense, it gets deleted within like 30 seconds. Sometimes smaller edits slip through (like editing one word to make it sound stupid), but that doesnt effect the meaning of the article anyways. Wikipedia is 99% trustworthy. Using other sites is still important, though.
I use simple English wikipedia, because my teachers wont let me use long words because I "copied and pasted" it even though I have a right mind of my own to use words. But I would say about 90% is trustworthy. But like most people I edit things and put stupid things there for fun, and thats what ruins the site.
I know tons of teachers say that Wiki a credible source, because Wiki is moderated, and every new post or change gets monitored. It's not different than the encyclopedia's found in someones house.
What do they sit there overnight waiting for pages to be editited? Because once I just edited the main part of guitars with "Greek yoghurt" and it didn't show up.
My friend is in a major band (playradioplay!) and I edited it a long time ago boasting about his greatness: "He has three working testicles" ect ect. Obviously this is fictitious, but to give some to the site, it got taken down three months or so later when he got signed to a major record label (Island). The only problem i've had with it is that the majority of the articles are very one sided. But apparently there is some kind of thing now were people flag it for being biased, so thats dank. I use it as a reliable source.
My school never lets us use the wiki, but its just as reliable as any other site clicked by google. Dont quote me, but my brother told me that there was a study that proved it.
On Topic: At any given point in time, the accuracy of any one article on Wikipedia cannot be guaranteed, therefore no, it is not trustworthy in that sense. That said, I use it and generally believe almost everything I read there, unless there are any red flags (which applies to everything you read on the internet). Off Topic: Now that I'm out of school and won't have to do any of that type stuff anymore... I agree that you shouldn't be able to cite Wikipedia, the same as you shouldn't be able to cite encyclopedias. You should cite the sources cited in the encyclopedia (or wiki).
Both yes and no. Wikipedia is a mess of data compiled from other sources, such as websites and encyclopedias, so only in some cases is it helpful, but it still becomes victim to hateful words or just far-out claims on a certain subject or event.
It's pretty funny when a page on there gets raided by one of the chans or something and becomes complete hilarity. This isn't really a debate though, you guys are just talking about wikipedia. ???
Wikipedia is not based on facts. Like an actual encyclopedia, it's a compendium of outstanding information obtained from other sources of research. What does this mean? It should not be cited as there can be small errors The links at the bottom are usually okay to go by, but not always. If you're just looking up a quick fact to settle an argument, it's fine. Also keep these points in mind: Reports of large innaccuracies are over exaggerated Outlandish statements are just vandalism and easily spotted, and quickly dealt with Wikipedia: Anyone Can Edit. Its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.