• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Is Wikipedia a Bad Site?

basement24

There's a Bazooka in TP!
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Location
Ontario, Canada
For those looking for a list of anime episodes however, they're pretty trustworthy.

LOL, I would have to agree! Not for anime, but I only really use it for cast lists and episode guides for Simpsons, King of the Hill and the like. It's great to help understand some of the very obscure pop culture references in Family Guy as well if you're so inclined.

Otherwise, galring omissions like your example of a WWII map of occupancy make it not the best source. It's sad that really only current and extremely popular events get true moderator attention since the site does have a lot of potential.
 

Cyrus Skyray

Gwladgarwr Tra Mad
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Location
Wales, land on my seeds
For what it is, Wikipedia is a great site. The information it has may be somewhat lacking in depth / inaccurate, however there aren't many (if any) sites of that nature as easy to access as Wikipedia.
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Location
Connecticut, USA
It's not a "bad" site. The only bad thing about it is that the information isn't always as credible as some people would like to believe, since basically anyone can add/edit/delete things. But it's a good resource and place for information.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
I personally use Wikipedia a lot. It's especially useful for getting the basic idea of something. But it can have false information, which isn't a good thing. Still, I tend to find things that are true on there.

I think it's the best place to go if you don't know anything at all about what you're looking up. From there, perhaps it would be better to look at another source.

The fact that anyone can edit is it's main flaw, but also it's main strength.
 

Immortal_One

Math is power.
Joined
May 28, 2009
Location
Indiana, USA
So many people criticize Wikipedia for being totally unreliable just because anyone can edit it. The site has a countless amount of moderators who have stood out from the rest of the community for their good edits and immense library of knowledge. These moderators are from different places all across the globe and are serious about what they do.

A few things slip through the cracks, but these few things are the only ones we hear about. There is a team of moderators on the recent edits page of Wikipedia at any given second of the day. Yes, the site lacks things like graphics and possibly some text-based information, but it's not up to the staff of Wikipedia to add that information, it's up to the users to contribute and add information as they see fit.

If you see that a Wikipedia page is missing something important, then add to that page. That's what the site was built for.
 

chrisbg99

OBEY THE FIST!
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Location
Fargo, ND
For trivia or non-contested information it is useful but for anything controversial or open heavily to interpretation I wouldn't trust it past getting an overview on the subject.
 

linkman8

True and Noble
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Location
United States of America
Ultimately I don't understand the reasoning behind many teachers saying "Don't use Wikipedia, it's an unreliable source." Virtually every page on Wikipedia has valid information put in by trustworthy people (moderators) that is always cited to either a book or another website to prove its validity. To say that you can just type in whatever rubbish you want is only true to a degree. You can only edit some pages, while some of the more important pages are locked and can't be edited, and in addition, any new changes that have been made are automatically logged, ready to be verified by a moderator, who will test its validity and change it if necessary.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Location
?
I do use Wikipedia occasionally. However, it's always better to look at official websites for the information you're looking for, since you're more likely to have professionals giving the information there. Not saying that's entirely true, considering there are false websites out there, and very smart Wiki people, but it's more likely.

What I mostly use Wikipedia for is video game or anime information, since it seems pretty decent for that much, at least. I used to use it for school work, but I eventually found it better to go for other sites. And sometimes I still use Wikipedia as a secondary resource. Find some information on one site, go to another one to contrast and compare information as well as find new stuff to use.

It's not necessarily a bad website to use, but it's also not the most legit one at the same time. I say it's okay to use, but you should always look for other resources anyway, especially if it's for school.
 

ケンジ

僕は準備完了しています!
Joined
May 24, 2009
Location
Paranaque City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Is Wikipedia a Bad Site? Yes, IF it does not have a Link to a certain Information thereby proving it True. No, IF the site has Proven any statement that is Purely True with the Usage of Links.

Wikipedia is just a site. People, rather persons who had done some research (some of them are Excellent some are very Poor) go there and post information that may be changed from time to time.
 

Bob Majinki

Deku Director
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Location
USA
Is Wikipedia a Bad Site? Yes, IF it does not have a Link to a certain Information thereby proving it True. No, IF the site has Proven any statement that is Purely True with the Usage of Links.

Wikipedia is just a site. People, rather persons who had done some research (some of them are Excellent some are very Poor) go there and post information that may be changed from time to time.

Even with the links, the information is usually false.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Location
?
Even with the links, the information is usually false.
How do you know for fact that the information is "usually false"? Whenver I've used it, it's seemed pretty accurate. Again, I think you should always get a second opinion, especially on school stuff. But what makes it "usually false"? This is implying that most Wiki users are putting up false information, which in turn implies one of two things:

1.) They don't know what they're talking about. If this is the case, then why are they on Wikipedia? Always get your facts straight before putting information up on the internet, which I'll bet most of them do. Not necessarily all of them, but I'd bet a good majority of Wiki users do indeed do that.

OR 2.) They're doing it on purpose. Less likely than the first one, since the only question is: Why would they do that? Maybe as a prank, I suppose, but someone else is bound to come up and fix it.
 

Bob Majinki

Deku Director
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Location
USA
How do you know for fact that the information is "usually false"? Whenver I've used it, it's seemed pretty accurate. Again, I think you should always get a second opinion, especially on school stuff. But what makes it "usually false"? This is implying that most Wiki users are putting up false information, which in turn implies one of two things:

1.) They don't know what they're talking about. If this is the case, then why are they on Wikipedia? Always get your facts straight before putting information up on the internet, which I'll bet most of them do. Not necessarily all of them, but I'd bet a good majority of Wiki users do indeed do that.

OR 2.) They're doing it on purpose. Less likely than the first one, since the only question is: Why would they do that? Maybe as a prank, I suppose, but someone else is bound to come up and fix it.

The information on major subjects usually has a limited viewpoint, and often times are poorly written. Never trust historical documentation that is poorly written. Let me bring up some major examples:

Korean War said:
In August 1950, the President and the Secretary of State easily persuaded the Congress to appropriate $12 billion to pay for the additional Asian military expenses essential to the goals of National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68), the American global containment of communism.[66]

Why are those words italicized? This is a small nitpick here, obviously. After this post I will fix that mistake.

Korean_war_1950-1953.gif

This image ignores an enormous amount of the land territory changes during the span of the war. This only shows five different territory maps. It completely ignores a major part of the war; Americans landing in Incheon and liberating South Korea in a strange, flank-like pattern. It also does not give the impression of how long it took for the United States and Allies to regain the South. It makes everything seem instantaneous. The only part of it that was instantaneous was the initial invasion by North Korea.

Here's a better illustration of how it actually happened:
korean_w.gif

Note that you DO NOT have permission to use this graphic on Wikipedia, as per request of the author of it. Notice how much more information this has, and how it actually gives an impression on how long and hard the war really was. After all, it is in the Top 10 worst atrocities that ever happened in human history, this war is.

Let us move on to another subject closer to my roots, thus one I know a lot about.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:
Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure both within and outside Iran. He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights.

Second paragraph and you're attacking the man. Leave that for the controversy section. Whatever happened to unbiased reporting? Let's compare this to a better written article.

Barack Obama said:
Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004.

See? That's an unbiased statement, fitting for a second paragraph. It's simple historic fact that is 100% true, as opposed to the name-calling you saw for Ahmadinejad.

The Ahmadinejad article is locked. I cannot fix this mistake. The only people who can are biased to be naturally against him. There's only a few people who are deserving of such negative opening articles: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Kim Il-Sung. For crying out loud, Fidel Castro's opening paragraphs are less biased, and unlike Ahmadinejad, he wasn't democratically elected.

On the article for the State of Palestine, it says in an accurate graphic that South Korea does not fully recognize us, but that they recognize delegates. However, in the list, South Korea is not listed as one who recognizes the delegation. Oh, and the Vatican is listed as not in Europe. The Vatican most definitely is in Europe, who said it isn't in Europe?

Luckily, that article isn't locked, so I'll be fixing this after I make the post.

I could go on all day if I have to.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Location
?
You have some good points. One thing to point out about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, is that it says "He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights." This is stating that these things have been said, rather than the author saying them. In this sense, it is fact, unless he hasn't been criticized for those things.

That little nitpick aside, you are correct for the most part. And this is why I strongly recommend a second, third, maybe even fourth if you want, source if you're going to use Wikipedia. I've used Wikipedia in the past, but that was mostly during middle school when I was sadly unaware of the dangers of the site. Nowadays, I take lengths to avoid it, and only use it if it really comes down to it. I also use it for anime and video game information, but that's stuff that isn't really important. Even then, I don't trust the information there as much as I do other sites.
 

Bob Majinki

Deku Director
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Location
USA
You have some good points. One thing to point out about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, is that it says "He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights." This is stating that these things have been said, rather than the author saying them. In this sense, it is fact, unless he hasn't been criticized for those things.

The mood is set immediately that he is instantly an evil man; which is not true. He has not committed genocide, he is simply anti-American. If I start an article on Obama with "He has been criticized of being a Kenyan national," which may be fact, and then followed on for the rest of the article that he is not American, that would be setting the mood of anti-Obama.

Leave the criticisms and the editorials for that specific section. The introduction paragraph for Ahmadinejad should simply have his name, birthplace and day, country, basic information, and then follow that up with non-biased political information saying that he was elected as Mayor of Tehran in said year and become President on said year and if the second run for president is too controversial, leave it for later in the article.

Kim Jong-il has a very controversial political career, but his Wikipedia article's introductory paragraphs say nothing about him being a warmonger. They simply say that according to CNN, he is the world's most mysterious leader, and that he is addressed as "Dear Leader" in his country. No controversial statements. No bias, except maybe on CNN. Just cold facts.

And while the Irish song Danny Boy has a tag on it to be checked for neutrality, Ahmadinejad's article has none. That's because it's left to the "experts" who hate the man and want to portray him and his country as anti-American, which is generally untrue. The man ws in NYC a few days ago, gave a very informative interview with the Associated Press, which is nowhere referenced on the page, and I cannot bring up that interview or quotes because it is locked by the "experts."

I've used this example before, but the page on World War II doesn't have a single map on it. That is just inexcusable. Needless to say, page is locked. I don't mind the pages being locked by experts, I'm just questioning whether those who do have access to these pages actually are experts.

Wikipedia is a good starting point though, but like you said, please use non-Wikipedia sources. A history textbook or two will usually do.
 

El Bagu

Wannabe Mr. 1-8-1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Location
In Woods. N of River!
I don´t know, but I wish I did. Guess I´m not smart enough to make a wise statement about it myself.

But I must admit that I do use the site from time to time. Do I trust it? Not a lot but it usually gives me some kind of hint (is that a word in the english language?) and I do like to learn things.

I will follow this thread with great interest.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom