Niko Bellic 817
GH3: Legends of Rock
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
I personally don't think it's bad at all. People critisize it for having false information. I find all of it mostly truthful.
Is Wikipedia a Bad Site?
- Thread starter Niko Bellic 817
- Start date
basement24
There's a Bazooka in TP!
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
I think it's a good go-to for basic information. If you hear somethign on television and don't understand what's being talked about, it might give a good overview to get you basically informed.
Further than that, I wouldn't trust the site much. It should never be used as a source for any type of paper written for school for one. I have heard that many people say there's nothing wrong with it's information, but anyone can write whatever they want on it.
The catch to Wikipedia is that most of the high-profile articles are heavily moderated and most untrue information will be removed shortly after it being posted, if not immediately. The catch is new articles or not as moderated ones. if I wanted to say I was president of the world I could go on and create a brand new page about me and how I conquered the world. It can be immediately published and searched. It can also go unnoticed for some time because it's not high-profile. Because of this, anything you find on there many not be 100% accurate depending on who is moderating it.
A couple of years ago, a Reader's Digest article I read was called out by a number of individuals who wrote in saying their information was false. Their rebuttal was stated "At the time of the article's printing, the information was accurate according to Wikipedia." So, if they were looking at the right moment where I declared myself the ruler of the world, then they could present it as fact and say it was accurate even though it was me just horsing around.
So, for down to earth facts on subjects, it's probably best to look up something in a library. Wikipedia will never be a 100% reliable source for information at all unfortunately because of the nature of the ability to self-author it. For general facts and knowledge as a basis for information gathering it can be a useful tool though. It should never be relied on as a be-all-end-all source of facts and definitive quotes though.
Further than that, I wouldn't trust the site much. It should never be used as a source for any type of paper written for school for one. I have heard that many people say there's nothing wrong with it's information, but anyone can write whatever they want on it.
The catch to Wikipedia is that most of the high-profile articles are heavily moderated and most untrue information will be removed shortly after it being posted, if not immediately. The catch is new articles or not as moderated ones. if I wanted to say I was president of the world I could go on and create a brand new page about me and how I conquered the world. It can be immediately published and searched. It can also go unnoticed for some time because it's not high-profile. Because of this, anything you find on there many not be 100% accurate depending on who is moderating it.
A couple of years ago, a Reader's Digest article I read was called out by a number of individuals who wrote in saying their information was false. Their rebuttal was stated "At the time of the article's printing, the information was accurate according to Wikipedia." So, if they were looking at the right moment where I declared myself the ruler of the world, then they could present it as fact and say it was accurate even though it was me just horsing around.
So, for down to earth facts on subjects, it's probably best to look up something in a library. Wikipedia will never be a 100% reliable source for information at all unfortunately because of the nature of the ability to self-author it. For general facts and knowledge as a basis for information gathering it can be a useful tool though. It should never be relied on as a be-all-end-all source of facts and definitive quotes though.
TVTMaster
Guy What's Angry Now
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Location
- It's a secret to everybody.
High-profile Wikipedia articles (as in, anything you'd go to for information on a topic, e.g. George Washington or Libya or E. Coli) are typically heavily moderated- so much so that one cannot actually write a research paper or other article on the topic without noticing the change. In addition, essentially nobody vandalizes articles to tell you that George Washington's father died in 1745 instead of 1743 or whatever. Any vandalism is likely to be extremely noticable, and any research paper not made in a total rush is going to have visited the page more than often enough to avoid misinformation due to vandalism.
Essentially, anyone who has the barest shred of discernment should easily be able to tell if an article is reputable. Featured articles, especially, ought to be considered valid sources, since they tend to be the most heavily moderated of all. In essence, only profoundly stupid people would really ever publish false information that came from Wikipedia in general- it's only in extremely narrow topics that it's even a real danger.
Essentially, anyone who has the barest shred of discernment should easily be able to tell if an article is reputable. Featured articles, especially, ought to be considered valid sources, since they tend to be the most heavily moderated of all. In essence, only profoundly stupid people would really ever publish false information that came from Wikipedia in general- it's only in extremely narrow topics that it's even a real danger.
link to present
Four Year ZD Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Location
- Still Stuck in the Water Temple
Its not a bad site and I use it alot when I get bored on the computer
carina:
carina:
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Location
- In my house
Wikipedia is to me one of the greatest sites I've ever come across.
I've used it in a lot of projects I have done, and it does get me what I need. I mean, a least in high high school or below, unless the teachers are just idiots and can't tell what's right or wrong, it got me through them. And for the most part it's right from what I know. Sure there are a few bad things every now and then, but a lot of the time those are fixed a short time after anyway. Naturally it's not as good at a college level, but otherwise it's good.
And it's a good place to spend time when you're bored. Just sit and read all day.
I've used it in a lot of projects I have done, and it does get me what I need. I mean, a least in high high school or below, unless the teachers are just idiots and can't tell what's right or wrong, it got me through them. And for the most part it's right from what I know. Sure there are a few bad things every now and then, but a lot of the time those are fixed a short time after anyway. Naturally it's not as good at a college level, but otherwise it's good.
And it's a good place to spend time when you're bored. Just sit and read all day.
Veely
Unwanted ZD Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2009
I sometimes Trust them But not all the Time Some Stuff you have to look up in magazines!
DisappearingMist
Mrs. Caleb
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Location
- Alaska
Wikipedia is great for a quick reference. But it is not meant for research papers. Many teachers don't consider it a legitimate source, for good reason. But I use it all the time for general information.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
Nope. It only has some false info but its pretty easy to tell its not real. Such as when someone chose a random spot and typed in "Angry Video Game Nerd PWNS Irate "Hack" Gamer". Which doesn't count as false info but there might be more.
S
Sovako
Guest
Yeah, I love wikipedia. All my professors are like class wikipedia is a bad thing, you will be failed if I see you using it. But personally, theres no better way of starting a paper than, wiki! 
Bob Majinki
Deku Director
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Location
- USA
Before Wikipedia implemented its policy of having important documents only edited by senior members, the site was downright terrible. And still, much information that the site gives is COMPLETELY inaccurate, incorrect, misleading, etc. For example, let's look at the page for World War II.
The main image is showing seemingly war pictures. So far, no maps, no leading generals, just war images. Let's continue through the article, looking only through pictures for now. We have lots of war images, a few pictures of the leaders, more war images, more war images, a nuclear bomb, and we get our first graph after half the article is over. We have a second graph, and then a lot of citations. What is missing?
Not a single map. Not one single map. No maps of Europe, Asia, anything. Not a single dang map. 307 citations, and there are NO MAPS. Wouldn't you think a map like this would be 100% necessary for a World War II encyclopedia page?
From a non-Wikipedia source;
(Aftermath of the Second World War)
(sorry text on right's hard to read against black background)
Wikipedia has its uses, but it's not even close to being reliable. For those looking for a list of anime episodes however, they're pretty trustworthy.
The main image is showing seemingly war pictures. So far, no maps, no leading generals, just war images. Let's continue through the article, looking only through pictures for now. We have lots of war images, a few pictures of the leaders, more war images, more war images, a nuclear bomb, and we get our first graph after half the article is over. We have a second graph, and then a lot of citations. What is missing?
Not a single map. Not one single map. No maps of Europe, Asia, anything. Not a single dang map. 307 citations, and there are NO MAPS. Wouldn't you think a map like this would be 100% necessary for a World War II encyclopedia page?
From a non-Wikipedia source;
(Aftermath of the Second World War)
(sorry text on right's hard to read against black background)
Wikipedia has its uses, but it's not even close to being reliable. For those looking for a list of anime episodes however, they're pretty trustworthy.
Zeruda
Mother Hyrule
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Location
- on a crumbling throne
Hahaha, it's funny but true. Wikipedia is a horrible source for reliable information. Often, in reports and whatnot, people are not allowed to source or cite Wikipedia because it does contain many errors. For general information, yeah, it's decent. But if you're looking for real, in-depth, 100% true sourced material, you're better off sticking to a library or the primary articles themselves.