answered question
5
Votes
Votes
26
Answers
Answers
M$1.85
How much do you trust Wikipedia?
voted interesting: jeffhoard M$1.00, lilyloretta M$0.25, michelleldevon M$0.05, brian san M$0.25, philipy M$0.05
answers (27)
ive been using the pedia for some time now and I trust it so much that I actually integrated it into my site shoptimesaver.com... you can check it out upon searching through out the site there is a wiki section on the left section so you can read up on all your favorite brands and such... Check it out when you have some time.
Thanks, Mike !
Thanks, Mike !
voted helpful: buddawiggi
Voted as best: kareul
Enough to use it as a starting point but certainly not enough to cite it as a source.
I might appeal to it in an argument, but I have to say I'd be a little disappointed if the other person was willing to allow the wiki to settle the argument.
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. In some cases, this means the entries are fairly accurate, but in others it just means they reflect what people who edit Wikipedia think.
I might appeal to it in an argument, but I have to say I'd be a little disappointed if the other person was willing to allow the wiki to settle the argument.
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. In some cases, this means the entries are fairly accurate, but in others it just means they reflect what people who edit Wikipedia think.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, hartwell, jeffhoard, lilyloretta
I really don't at all.
Any Joe Schmoe can post info on there. I don't know who you are or how much you know,If you even know anything about the info you write on. Some may be good but I rather use a more reliable source than Wikipedia!
Any Joe Schmoe can post info on there. I don't know who you are or how much you know,If you even know anything about the info you write on. Some may be good but I rather use a more reliable source than Wikipedia!
voted helpful: buddawiggi, lilyloretta
Sometimes, I think too much. I usually try to get two sources whenever I research anything on the inernet. Sometimes that is not possible. I have yet to find a Wikipedia entry that was blatantly wrong.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, hartwell
Wikipedia is a good place to start research. Once you find facts or opinions there that answer your needs you should verify by following their cited sources. However, I try to avoid using wiki as and only, unsupported source.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, hartwell, lilyloretta
On a scale of 1 - 10, I would give it a 6, I tend to take it at face value, but double check the sources before using the information.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, hartwell, lilyloretta
I trust them. You're all right that people could edit stuffs there and all, but haven't you noticed that if you edited one page with wrong facts it would be changed right away? We actually tried editing one page before. We put some unreliable facts and without even 5 minutes or so, the error we placed was deleted.
Yes there are times when someone could post something there but the site is way honest saying that that particular page was based on personal opinion and the like? Have you noticed a banner on a page saying something like that on some pages?
Back then in college, just 2 years ago, Wikipedia has been helping me in my research. This is why I trust the site a lot. It never fails to give me the correct answer. :)
Yes there are times when someone could post something there but the site is way honest saying that that particular page was based on personal opinion and the like? Have you noticed a banner on a page saying something like that on some pages?
Back then in college, just 2 years ago, Wikipedia has been helping me in my research. This is why I trust the site a lot. It never fails to give me the correct answer. :)
voted helpful: buddawiggi
For subjects that I understand, i've rarely found anything to take issue with. For subjects that I know nothing about, I find wikipedia to have a pretty good summary. It's a starting place.
Now, compare that to newspapers. Remember the last time you read a newspaper article about a subject that you knew all about? How close was the newspaper article to your version of "the truth?" Probably not very.
Same thing goes for magazine articles and television news reports. There is more bad reporting than there is good.
An easy way to test this ... go read some old newspaper reviews of your favorite movie. Then read the wiki page for that film. Now wiki pages are NOT reviews, but you get the point.
Now, compare that to newspapers. Remember the last time you read a newspaper article about a subject that you knew all about? How close was the newspaper article to your version of "the truth?" Probably not very.
Same thing goes for magazine articles and television news reports. There is more bad reporting than there is good.
An easy way to test this ... go read some old newspaper reviews of your favorite movie. Then read the wiki page for that film. Now wiki pages are NOT reviews, but you get the point.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, lilyloretta, kty2777
I think that Wikipedia is a great place to start, though I rarely cite it. I often find some on-point links from it, and it gives a good overview of subjects I know little about.
voted helpful: hartwell, buddawiggi
They will write on my grave when I die...
"Jeff always said Wikipedia was a great place to start your Internet research, but never where you should end it"
When it comes to trust, I feel their community does a pretty good job at sourcing and keeping everything accurate on major topics, but at the end of the day it is an encyclopedia "that anybody can edit" and they have a tiny staff and then its all volunteers, so only so much information can be double-checked. There have been many times I have visited and found inaccuracies, each time it makes me trust them less.
"Jeff always said Wikipedia was a great place to start your Internet research, but never where you should end it"
When it comes to trust, I feel their community does a pretty good job at sourcing and keeping everything accurate on major topics, but at the end of the day it is an encyclopedia "that anybody can edit" and they have a tiny staff and then its all volunteers, so only so much information can be double-checked. There have been many times I have visited and found inaccuracies, each time it makes me trust them less.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, chriswingate, brian san, mattanswer, ghanan20003000, silvos1988
Check it any way. Then check other sources too. Think, it is pretty much reliable.
voted helpful: buddawiggi
I always use it as a beginning stepping stone, you could say. It gives me some direction with what I'm looking for. If I find info there and double check it elsewhere, but Wiki has the best description and the info checks out..then I will site Wikipedia. :)
voted helpful: buddawiggi, lilyloretta
I think the recent backlash against Wikipedia's credibility is way out of proportion.
It is fashionable to not trust Wikipedia as a source, but nothing else you find on the internet is likely to be any more accurate.
Unlike other websites, Wikipedia is constantly scrutinized by a huge community looking for inaccuracies and vandalism. Sometimes 'joke' postings are removed before a minute has passed.
I never cite Wikipedia as a source anywhere, but that is just because the popular opinion is that Wikipedia is somehow less credible than someones personal homepage.
It is fashionable to not trust Wikipedia as a source, but nothing else you find on the internet is likely to be any more accurate.
Unlike other websites, Wikipedia is constantly scrutinized by a huge community looking for inaccuracies and vandalism. Sometimes 'joke' postings are removed before a minute has passed.
I never cite Wikipedia as a source anywhere, but that is just because the popular opinion is that Wikipedia is somehow less credible than someones personal homepage.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, kty2777
Wikipedia is an excellent place to BEGIN your search for information, since they have the references at the bottom of the page, and paraphrase and summarize the information. It can help you decide which direction to point your research and what sources are commonly accepted for certain aspects of research.
Beyond using it as a starting point for research to help guide you to the right sources or as a quick summation of the issues, descriptions, etc, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia any further than I can throw it.
Many teachers and professors at college and high school levels and below and above will specifically tell student NOT to use Wikipedia as a source, ever. The main reason for that is because Wikipedia is never the source of information. Everything in Wikipedia should be vetted and sourced, so the real source is the place where Wikipedia verified the information--not Wikipedia itself.
Also, because Wikipedia's changes are on the fly and real-time, and anyone can edit someone could come in at any time, vandalize a page, put up erroneous information, put up unsourced information, and until the community notices it and pulls it, it will be posted right there alongside the other information.
It's your job to verify the information you read--on Wikipedia or any other website, book or magazine or writing--is accurate.
Beyond using it as a starting point for research to help guide you to the right sources or as a quick summation of the issues, descriptions, etc, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia any further than I can throw it.
Many teachers and professors at college and high school levels and below and above will specifically tell student NOT to use Wikipedia as a source, ever. The main reason for that is because Wikipedia is never the source of information. Everything in Wikipedia should be vetted and sourced, so the real source is the place where Wikipedia verified the information--not Wikipedia itself.
Also, because Wikipedia's changes are on the fly and real-time, and anyone can edit someone could come in at any time, vandalize a page, put up erroneous information, put up unsourced information, and until the community notices it and pulls it, it will be posted right there alongside the other information.
It's your job to verify the information you read--on Wikipedia or any other website, book or magazine or writing--is accurate.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, keepontryin
I tend to double-check results from Wikipedia, partly to make sure when it matters (and most of the time it matters) and partly because I'm curious.
What I've found is that it's been 97.3% useful when looking for quick reviews of hard-scientific facts. The only time I found a hard-science entry that didn't click quite right was when looking for the most recent estimates on the Hubble constant, and it was too fuzzy about the current debates over what that value might be, and what the factors are being used to estimate it, such that I eventually dropped it altogether and went to JPL for a value I could work with.
For social-science stuff, like history, sociology, anthropology, and behavioral psychology I've found it to be about 82% okay when looking for a quick update, but I always look for at least one cross-reference, because a bit less than one time out of five I've found the entry to be heavily biased by some special interest group affected by ones understanding of said historical, sociological, anthropological or behavior-psychology fact.
For stuff that has to do with products, politics, or religion, I don't use it for anything other than to show me which side of an issue is pushing the hardest. Product descriptions are invariably cut-and-paste from the manufacturer's official brochures and white-papers, statements about politics are always cut-and-paste directly from the official policy statements of the various factions and parties, and the religious stuff is either a strait copy from the denomination's official website, or if it's about an organization opposed to a particular religion, the content is a cut-and-paste from their website.
What that means is I tend to trust it when I need a fast look-up for a hard-science fact, like the wavelength of radioactive cesium, and I skip it altogether for products, politics or religion, and I use it as a starting point for social-sciences like history, sociology, anthropology and/or behavioral psychology, from whence I seek at least one independent, non-cut-and-paste cross-reference.
What I've found is that it's been 97.3% useful when looking for quick reviews of hard-scientific facts. The only time I found a hard-science entry that didn't click quite right was when looking for the most recent estimates on the Hubble constant, and it was too fuzzy about the current debates over what that value might be, and what the factors are being used to estimate it, such that I eventually dropped it altogether and went to JPL for a value I could work with.
For social-science stuff, like history, sociology, anthropology, and behavioral psychology I've found it to be about 82% okay when looking for a quick update, but I always look for at least one cross-reference, because a bit less than one time out of five I've found the entry to be heavily biased by some special interest group affected by ones understanding of said historical, sociological, anthropological or behavior-psychology fact.
For stuff that has to do with products, politics, or religion, I don't use it for anything other than to show me which side of an issue is pushing the hardest. Product descriptions are invariably cut-and-paste from the manufacturer's official brochures and white-papers, statements about politics are always cut-and-paste directly from the official policy statements of the various factions and parties, and the religious stuff is either a strait copy from the denomination's official website, or if it's about an organization opposed to a particular religion, the content is a cut-and-paste from their website.
What that means is I tend to trust it when I need a fast look-up for a hard-science fact, like the wavelength of radioactive cesium, and I skip it altogether for products, politics or religion, and I use it as a starting point for social-sciences like history, sociology, anthropology and/or behavioral psychology, from whence I seek at least one independent, non-cut-and-paste cross-reference.
voted helpful: buddawiggi
For my personal use, I trust Wikipedia. When trying to learn about a famous person, science related topic, etc., I usually rely on Wikipedia. And I haven't had any problems with inaccurate information. In short, if it's just for my own knowledge, I trust Wikipedia.
That said, I would not use Wikipedia for a citation or for answers on Mahalo in 95% of cases. As the Jeff Hoard mantra goes, "Wikipedia is a great place to start", but not the final destination.
That said, I would not use Wikipedia for a citation or for answers on Mahalo in 95% of cases. As the Jeff Hoard mantra goes, "Wikipedia is a great place to start", but not the final destination.
tags: wikipedia
voted helpful: buddawiggi, kty2777
Due to Wikipedia's open nature, critics have questioned its reliability and accuracy.The site has been criticized for its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of false or unverified information, uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies, and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process. Wikipedia's content policies and sub-projects set up by contributors seek to address these concerns. Two scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived and that Wikipedia is generally as accurate as other encyclopedias. In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has also received major media attention as an online source of breaking news, given that it is constantly updated by some 6.8 million registered users worldwide.
I feel like it's a great resource for anything definitive and not at all subjective. Like, how RAM works, what some Maclaruin series' are. These things are static and don't change based on political/religious/personal beliefs and biases. Beyond that, it's a good spring board. You don't have to use Wikipedia if it seems fishy, it's always possible to use what wikipedia cites! This was a great tip for those barbaric professors that say Wikipedia = F, instantly. I found many of Wikipedia's sources to be very scholarly (for some, use your desecration, of course, and talk to a librarian to verify a source).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series#List_of_Maclaurin_series_of_some_common_functions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series#List_of_Maclaurin_series_of_some_common_functions
source(s):
Student, Teacher
Student, Teacher
voted helpful: buddawiggi
Wikipedia has long been the most controversial online encyclopedia I can think of. In my opinion it is 90% reliable. If you really want to find out basic information about a subject it is great. I wouldn't cite things such as dates however because it is easier to misspell a date and the pages don't really get edited. For the people that are completely against wikipedia I say try it for yourself. It is hard enough to get a topic, and even harder to have it reviewed 100% by wikipedia. Any topic that is put up with unsourced and unreliable information is taken down. So if you are like me and like to look up random searches online, like "kangaroos" for instance it is a fast easy encyclopedia. If you are writing anything for school or work, I would stay away. Teachers hate seeing wiki-anything on a source sheet.
tags: wikipedia
voted helpful: buddawiggi
It's a thought provoking question, which brings up yet another thought provoking question - how much can you trust any source? I can't remember where I saw it, but I vaguely recall reading about a study of how "accurate" different people (scientists, doctors, general public, etc.) considered different sources such as primary source scientific papers, review papers, popular science magazine papers, news articles (you get the idea). The results were pretty much as you might expect. However, (I'll take the opportunity to hide behind a rather thin layer of anonymity to say) even the most "trustworthy" source - the peer-reviewed scientific literature - has plenty of ambiguities and some out-right mistakes. The estimate of "90% accurate" might be pretty generous even for the primary literature!
So I guess that wikipedia does a pretty good job, but it is important to research thoroughly no matter what your source. (of course there is the issue of accountability and provenance - at least if a cited scientific paper is wrong you know who to blame! :-) ).
So I guess that wikipedia does a pretty good job, but it is important to research thoroughly no matter what your source. (of course there is the issue of accountability and provenance - at least if a cited scientific paper is wrong you know who to blame! :-) ).
source(s):
I wish I could remember the article that reported the study, although I'm not sure how much I would trust it... :P
I wish I could remember the article that reported the study, although I'm not sure how much I would trust it... :P
voted helpful: brian san, philipy, buddawiggi
A long time ago I read a remark, prob in a science mag, that about 80% of what is in the textbooks is right, but only about 50% of what is in the journals.
The numbers might've been different... 50% sounds rather on the high side!
Textbooks have errors, and also theories which while they may be the consensus at time of writing will be overturned in the future. If an older book, they may already have been overturned by the time you're reading!
Papers on the other hand are the cutting edge, and the very nature of science is that what is in the journals is not securely established but only what is intersting enough and credible enough to share with others so they can also look into it and maybe poke holes in it.
It is very common that you find something like this...
A highly reputable souce like a major newspaper or high-quality magazine has an article that says "research has shown X". Where X is some sweeping statement like "more money doesn't make people happy", "red wine is good for your health", "Earthlike planets are abundant in the universe"....
Then you go look in the journal article they are reporting about, and you find a much more limited conclusion with many caveats....
Then, if you really care about the field, you go drill down into the original research, like someone's thesis, or the original authors papers and their raw data, and you find even the limited conclusion is maybe a rather debatable interpretation of the evidence.
I have been around long enough to see plenty of 180 degree turns in things that were stated as scientific fact when I was a teen, things like...
- Brain stops developing around about age 18, thereafter decline only
- Margarine / butter / all fats are bad - or good! - for health
- Next shift in Earth's climate will be to an Ice Age
- Planetary orbits are pretty stable
There are no absolute certainties from any source, and a great many things bandied about as well established truths aren't anything of the sort. :)
The numbers might've been different... 50% sounds rather on the high side!
Textbooks have errors, and also theories which while they may be the consensus at time of writing will be overturned in the future. If an older book, they may already have been overturned by the time you're reading!
Papers on the other hand are the cutting edge, and the very nature of science is that what is in the journals is not securely established but only what is intersting enough and credible enough to share with others so they can also look into it and maybe poke holes in it.
It is very common that you find something like this...
A highly reputable souce like a major newspaper or high-quality magazine has an article that says "research has shown X". Where X is some sweeping statement like "more money doesn't make people happy", "red wine is good for your health", "Earthlike planets are abundant in the universe"....
Then you go look in the journal article they are reporting about, and you find a much more limited conclusion with many caveats....
Then, if you really care about the field, you go drill down into the original research, like someone's thesis, or the original authors papers and their raw data, and you find even the limited conclusion is maybe a rather debatable interpretation of the evidence.
I have been around long enough to see plenty of 180 degree turns in things that were stated as scientific fact when I was a teen, things like...
- Brain stops developing around about age 18, thereafter decline only
- Margarine / butter / all fats are bad - or good! - for health
- Next shift in Earth's climate will be to an Ice Age
- Planetary orbits are pretty stable
There are no absolute certainties from any source, and a great many things bandied about as well established truths aren't anything of the sort. :)
Thanks for the comment, philipy. As you might have guessed, I am working as a researcher, which means writing papers. And I think that most of us honestly try to get it right. But you are right on in saying that lots of stuff reported in papers get proved wrong later, plus the inevitable twist that gets put on a scientific finding when it makes its way to the popular media.
I am very interesting in the process by which scientific knowledge gets "crystallized" into the widely accepted "facts" that we put in textbooks. In this sense, wikipedia plays a similar role in distilling the accepted truths from the rapidly changing landscape of "proposed truths" in the scientific literature.
However, at the end of the day, I think that a major issue with wikipedia still is the lack of accountability and persistence. The name of the author of a textbook means something, if no more than to say that there is an authority willing to take responsibility for the accuracy of what is written in the textbook. I guess that the lack of author naming in wikipedia serves to maintain objectiveness, and one might argue that by providing references to the writings of "experts", the accountability is addressed, but most people do not take the time to track down references (despite the facility of hyperlinks...) so it still comes down to lack of accountability for me.
I am very interesting in the process by which scientific knowledge gets "crystallized" into the widely accepted "facts" that we put in textbooks. In this sense, wikipedia plays a similar role in distilling the accepted truths from the rapidly changing landscape of "proposed truths" in the scientific literature.
However, at the end of the day, I think that a major issue with wikipedia still is the lack of accountability and persistence. The name of the author of a textbook means something, if no more than to say that there is an authority willing to take responsibility for the accuracy of what is written in the textbook. I guess that the lack of author naming in wikipedia serves to maintain objectiveness, and one might argue that by providing references to the writings of "experts", the accountability is addressed, but most people do not take the time to track down references (despite the facility of hyperlinks...) so it still comes down to lack of accountability for me.
I have to agree with Jeff's answer. Wikipedia may be a good place for a quick glance, but it can't be used for referencing and just isn't as reliable as some may think it is.
voted helpful: buddawiggi
Id trust it as far as i could trust any of my friends; believe them, but always double check before you cite the source.
As `anybody` can edit this, it can leave it to mindless editing for `fun`.
If you find anything on there, make sure to search the web for other sources, as wikipedia may give you ideas on facts about whatever your researching, the facts may not be entirely correct.
As `anybody` can edit this, it can leave it to mindless editing for `fun`.
If you find anything on there, make sure to search the web for other sources, as wikipedia may give you ideas on facts about whatever your researching, the facts may not be entirely correct.
voted helpful: buddawiggi
Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process. Critics argue that non-expert editing undermines quality. Because contributors usually rewrite small portions of an entry rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality content may be intermingled within an entry.since anyone can contribute to wikepedia by editing it the trusting of the articles depents upon the contributers.....
Hi there @ashrapar Welcome to Mahalo!
For the most part you have copy and pasted this directly from Wikipedia, from the article about Wikipedia itself, we would have rather seen you write this in your own words. To learn a bit more about how to give great answers have a look at this helpful guide Mahalo Answers Etiquette. Using this guide will make the job of answering questions here so much easier for you and us.
For the most part you have copy and pasted this directly from Wikipedia, from the article about Wikipedia itself, we would have rather seen you write this in your own words. To learn a bit more about how to give great answers have a look at this helpful guide Mahalo Answers Etiquette. Using this guide will make the job of answering questions here so much easier for you and us.
Like most others, I do not trust Wikipedia as a cited source. I generally skip past Wiki entries when searching and only resort to them when my own searching for original sources leaves me banging my head. If I do use Wiki, it is ONLY as a starting point and continuing on to other more accepted sources.
The following entry is regarding an issue very close to where I live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Freshwater
I've followed it closely since the beginning - I have read every news article published, I've read the investigator's report, I've watched the interviews on television, watched videos of the board meetings and I've read transcripts of the STILL ongoing hearing (a year now) from those in the audience. I have also met and spoken with John and actually find him to be a really nice guy who grows some of the most delicious asparagus I've ever had.
All of the sources cited are media reports, some of which I've used in my own articles and forum postings. However, just as in the mainstream media, Wiki has too much room for opinion and separating the two is difficult if you are not familiar with the topic. This particular entry has been edited often since the 4/2008 beginning of this ordeal. Initially, there was an emphasis on Freshwater's "Bible on the Desk". I do feel that the entry is less biased now than it was a year ago.
I have educators in my family and we've discussed how they handle Wikipedia. At least in these situations, students are not permitted to cite Wikipedia as a source for their research when writing papers.
The following entry is regarding an issue very close to where I live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Freshwater
I've followed it closely since the beginning - I have read every news article published, I've read the investigator's report, I've watched the interviews on television, watched videos of the board meetings and I've read transcripts of the STILL ongoing hearing (a year now) from those in the audience. I have also met and spoken with John and actually find him to be a really nice guy who grows some of the most delicious asparagus I've ever had.
All of the sources cited are media reports, some of which I've used in my own articles and forum postings. However, just as in the mainstream media, Wiki has too much room for opinion and separating the two is difficult if you are not familiar with the topic. This particular entry has been edited often since the 4/2008 beginning of this ordeal. Initially, there was an emphasis on Freshwater's "Bible on the Desk". I do feel that the entry is less biased now than it was a year ago.
I have educators in my family and we've discussed how they handle Wikipedia. At least in these situations, students are not permitted to cite Wikipedia as a source for their research when writing papers.
source(s):
personal experience
personal experience
voted helpful: buddawiggi
What's important to know about Wikipedia is that it is a site where users submit the information. There is a large possibility of there being errors, misinformation along with just plain ridiculousness.
Even so, I trust Wikipedia. I have never found anything on there that I did not go on and research further to make sure the information I had gotten there had been accurate; however, I've always found it to be precise.
I think most people who take the time to sit themselves down and type out a massive informational piece are not likely to be those who know nothing of the subject that they are talking about.
In the event that does happen, it's likely that the reader would recognize that the person who wrote the piece in question is not qualified to have done so.
It would soon get reported and before long removed.
No matter what sites you are using for research information, compare it to other sites. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, as they say. And that goes for all sites, not just Wikipedia.
Even so, I trust Wikipedia. I have never found anything on there that I did not go on and research further to make sure the information I had gotten there had been accurate; however, I've always found it to be precise.
I think most people who take the time to sit themselves down and type out a massive informational piece are not likely to be those who know nothing of the subject that they are talking about.
In the event that does happen, it's likely that the reader would recognize that the person who wrote the piece in question is not qualified to have done so.
It would soon get reported and before long removed.
No matter what sites you are using for research information, compare it to other sites. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, as they say. And that goes for all sites, not just Wikipedia.
source(s):
Personal Experience
Personal Experience
voted helpful: buddawiggi
Information on Wikipedia is entered and updated by users & experts. It is based on real situations. So it is true most of the time. But some information may not be updated or correct. So I trust Wikipedia 85%.
Should you require more help ? Contact me anytime.
Should you require more help ? Contact me anytime.
voted helpful: buddawiggi
How much do I trust Wikipedia?
It varies from topic to topic.
There are types of articles on which I would tend to consider Wikipedia "presumed innocent until proven guilty". For the kinds of thing that I look up, all of the following are usually fine...
- Mainstream science and math topics, e.g. Stellar Evolution
- Basic factual info on movies, books, actors, writers etc
- Geekish fandom info, e.g. Star Trek epsiode details
- Sports info, e.g. trophies won, current team members
On this kind of stuff I might check what sources they cite, but as long as the writing appears intelligent and doesn't raise any questions in my mind. I'm not a lot more sceptical than if I was reading a newspaper. Not that I'm unentirely trusting when I'm reading newspapers.
Then there are a bunch of topics that are "proceed with caution", for example...
- Social sciences and economics
- Historical events
These things can be minefields where it's hard to tell what is even a "fact", as opposed to some guy's best guesstimate. And it's also easy to find "authorities" and "sources" that say whatever the heck you'd like to believe.
I'd check the article sources very carefully, and I wouldn't even believe just one good source, but compare a number of credible ones.
Finally, there are a bunch of topics on which my attitude would be "presumed guilty until proven innocent". Things like...
- Controversial topics, e.g. poltiicians, politics, celebrities
- Company and product info
- Ultra niche topics
Things that people might feel strongly about, or have reason to "play dirty" over, and things where the article has likely not undergone much scrutiny, and could easily be out of date or otherwise badly flawed.
In these kinds of instances, I probably won't even look at Wikipedia unless I have trouble finding more reliable sources.
All told I suppose I regard Wikipedia in broadly the same light as Mahalo or the local bookshop. I don't regard every book in the bookshop as an equally trustworthy source of info. :)
Finally, apart from the issue of "trust", Wikipedia articles vary a lot in how well written they are. There are plenty that are not actually incorrect, but just very hard to follow and learn anything useful from. Unfortunately the same could be said of a lot of books too!
It varies from topic to topic.
There are types of articles on which I would tend to consider Wikipedia "presumed innocent until proven guilty". For the kinds of thing that I look up, all of the following are usually fine...
- Mainstream science and math topics, e.g. Stellar Evolution
- Basic factual info on movies, books, actors, writers etc
- Geekish fandom info, e.g. Star Trek epsiode details
- Sports info, e.g. trophies won, current team members
On this kind of stuff I might check what sources they cite, but as long as the writing appears intelligent and doesn't raise any questions in my mind. I'm not a lot more sceptical than if I was reading a newspaper. Not that I'm unentirely trusting when I'm reading newspapers.
Then there are a bunch of topics that are "proceed with caution", for example...
- Social sciences and economics
- Historical events
These things can be minefields where it's hard to tell what is even a "fact", as opposed to some guy's best guesstimate. And it's also easy to find "authorities" and "sources" that say whatever the heck you'd like to believe.
I'd check the article sources very carefully, and I wouldn't even believe just one good source, but compare a number of credible ones.
Finally, there are a bunch of topics on which my attitude would be "presumed guilty until proven innocent". Things like...
- Controversial topics, e.g. poltiicians, politics, celebrities
- Company and product info
- Ultra niche topics
Things that people might feel strongly about, or have reason to "play dirty" over, and things where the article has likely not undergone much scrutiny, and could easily be out of date or otherwise badly flawed.
In these kinds of instances, I probably won't even look at Wikipedia unless I have trouble finding more reliable sources.
All told I suppose I regard Wikipedia in broadly the same light as Mahalo or the local bookshop. I don't regard every book in the bookshop as an equally trustworthy source of info. :)
Finally, apart from the issue of "trust", Wikipedia articles vary a lot in how well written they are. There are plenty that are not actually incorrect, but just very hard to follow and learn anything useful from. Unfortunately the same could be said of a lot of books too!
voted helpful: buddawiggi
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
