It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wiki - anything as a reliable source????

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:37 AM
Hey a relative new comer here I thought I'd pick your brains on your thoughts of using wiki anything, especially wikipedia, as a reliable source when posting news, information, thoughts, etc., here at ATS............

I have been taught, and tend to agree, that wiki anything is not a reliable maybe a good place to start a search, or research, yet not a good place to proclaim news, information, thoughts, etc....

having proclaimed this....I am saddened that lots of folks here do in fact source wiki as a reliable source.......and wonder....


posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:58 AM
I do post on ATS BUT i'd like to put this reply in anno

WIKI is a BIG FAT lie ...
WIKI is a propaganda tool and nothing else

No matter what u research ...History OR Science . No matter what aspect will never ever find more views then the accepted and apparetly correct "versions" or the subject !

Wiki will only support (factual) the standard views of our so misslead society .

An old cliche is unfortunately VERY true here :

..The winner writes the history books (and webpages)!!!

LOOK who owns and runs it !

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:12 AM
its not super reliable but as long as you back it up with somthing better or use it for just simple things even wiki cant get wrong its not to bad

its also depends on the other persons knowledge of the subject, if your discussing say Evolution with someone with limited or none existant knowledge its better to use wiki so they can get a grasp of what itis rather then start linning up peer reviewed papers if they dont understand the basics

though its always fun to throw them a peer reviewed paper and watch them totally skim past it so you know they dont really understand what they are discussing, but thats just my perverse sense of humor

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:15 AM
While a Wiki can be a wonderful source of links and information, it should never be used as proof of anything, since it can be edited by anyone.
Often times you can get the jest of a subject by visiting the user-made pages, but always confirm your data from a "credible source.


posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:24 AM
I think it's good to get a basic idea on something. Any information from there can be verified elsewhere.
But at the end of the day, you can't trust anything on the net as automatic truth. There's BS from conspiracy sites right through to Government sites.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:38 AM
Wikipedia pages are only as reliable as their authors. Some pages are excellent sources of information with supporting links to reputable sites and all citations present. Others are high school level and not good enough to cite in a post. I guess you just have to judge for yourself.

As a rule, I always try to find a .edu site to link because academic information is usually more rigorous. Always avoid linking anything to a 'weird/ mystical/ psychic/ NWO-style site because they are rarely reliable. I think most rational people hover on the link to see the address. If it looks reliable, they check it out. Here's a perfect example of an unreliable site that you would NOT use : ) It was sited on a recent thread and actually substantiated the OP because it's owned by the OP

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:41 AM
Wiki is a great source of information. if you are not to lazy to do your own research into the legitimacy of whatever you are looking for. You should get into the habit of doing that for even "legitimate" information.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Bringer]

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:05 AM

Originally posted by lernmore
... always confirm your data from a "credible source.

What is a "credible" source today? I mean, even going to the MSM for your news these days is wrought with propaganda, misinformation, and anything but the facts. I will say that peer reviewed papers can be credible, however even they are often just opinions.

Personally, I use wiki because it is fast and easy. Most of its information is primarily fact based, can be easily verified, and is usually very good about its coverage of a subject.

Really, if you want to "prove" something, personally I think that any one source lacks the necessary impact.

For scholastic purposes, though I may start my internet search with wiki, I would never use it as a source.

That said, I personally have no problem with someone using wiki as a source. If I distrust the information being sourced, the wiki page may help me to search for positions of opposition.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:35 AM

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by lernmore
... always confirm your data from a "credible source.

What is a "credible" source today? I mean, even going to the MSM for your news these days is wrought with propaganda, misinformation, and anything but the facts.

The problem with the MSM isn't so much that their information is always incorrect, it's just that you only get half the story, their half. Often times important news isn't mentioned at all if it might conflict with the interests of their corporate sponsors.

A drug company also isn't likely to conduct a study which concludes negative results, and then publish that for the public.

Currently, the most reputable sources are generally sites with .edu, .gov, and some "reputable" science journals if you're looking for a couple examples.

One thing I am sure of, is that if you tried turning in a research paper in an astrophysics class at Yale, and used Wikipedia, Yahoo, or as your source, it wouldn't even be accepted, in almost every case.

The more paths you can travel to the same conclusion, the better your chances are of ending up with the correct result. Sometimes it's just a matter of "checking your math".


posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:54 PM
Wikipedia is good to get a thumbnail sketch of the topic the article discusses. Unfortunately, since anybody can modify a wikipedia article, it is not good for detailed information.

For example, a wikipedia article on a controversial politician can reliably tell you what offices the politician held and when they held them. The article may not be reliable in giving accounts of all that politicians actions in office in that anybody can put a spin on the politicians actions, choosing to omit or fabricate important details.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:30 PM
Wikipedia is a decent place to start, if you have a vague idea of a subject, you can read up on it and go from there on your research. The links on the article can help you find more information.
However, while Wiki is fairly strictly maintained, it's possible for stuff to slip through.

Only one question... what has this to do with secret societies?

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:21 AM
I don't like to use wikipedia. I make it a point to avoid Wikipedia as much as I can sometimes because I feel like the page of certain things are too long and I could spend all day on wikipedia getting useless information. I find other websites better-- not because wikipedia is not a reliable source-- but because I've just had problems with wikipedia. But wikipedia, as others have suggested, is a good introductory source. I have used wikipedia in the past to learn about something new. But, if you want something scholarly like, then you use other sources.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:31 PM
Wikipedia is the most popular and hence the most trafficked. The idea is that people “knowledgeable” will ultimately correct “errors” and converge onto the truth together. This sometimes works real well when you have highly trafficked articles. But sometimes, as mentioned, it gets biased by a “majority vote” even if a lot of ppl edit it. For “important/popular” articles, there usually is a group of volunteers (YOU can be one too) who “monitor” it and makes sure it is as unbiased and cited with reliable references as much as possible. Since it’s on the internet for example…naturally, stuff like computer technology based articles tend to be fairly reliable since there are so many of these types of people who hang around the internet and research this kind of stuff…and hence “converge” on truths…sometimes by visiting it to obtain more info and coincidentally realizing that they can “add something” to it. However, if you add something that is not cited properly and “believable” it will likely get erased (faster in highly trafficked articles of course). As a general rule, you can use it as a first step and follow any citations to determine the source and make sure it’s reputable. It might be from a university, or a leading market research company, or news article…or just a political party site (which most “wikipedians” would erase but you never know!). One tip I would suggest is look at the edit history and take the “recent changes” with more grains of salt…because they haven’t withstood the test of time. Other than that it makes a great starting point and may have many links that lead you to further information (some of which you can actually use as a citation in your paper, etc.)!

top topics


log in