It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: VoidHawk
Isn't it strange, people who tell us wikipedia is untrustworthy, and yet those same people cover a wall in their home with the biggest wide screen BS device (television) they can afford!
Wikipedia is great, but like ALL sources of info, you should double check it.
originally posted by: Hellhound604
I also use wikipedia a lot, but like any other source, you have to double check. I can remember a study comparing wikipedia with Encyclopedia Britannica which showed that wikipedia actually had less factual errors than Britannica. Cant remember where I read it, but I am sure Google (the other baddie) will find it, lol
originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Today I have again seen a number of posts where some referenced Wikipedia as some untrusted or unreliable source of information.
Why is that?
On academic stuff I agree, but please see that the OP referred to usking wikipedia here on ATS as a source.
How many university text books have factual errors in them? Quite a lot...
Many scientists complain about not enough kids becoming interested in science, yet they cannot embrace new concepts like wikipedia. Instead of breaking wikipedia off, why not entice kids into the interesting world of science by using something like wikipedia, and teaching the kids how to double check the information on it.