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.


VOTE... ATS Policy of NO Wikipedia Sources permited on ATS ( yes or no )

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by BearTruth

I think unsourced would go under skunkworks, no?

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:14 PM
Yes - if people can't figure out that it is WIKI and what that means by themselves, I don't care.

Wiki is a good place to start looking for information generally, if nothing else.

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:25 PM
YES. Wikipedia provides cited sources for each article and may provide a start for further research.
NO. Censorship by registered users of Wikipedia may alter data as we have learned from our "history books".

My answer: Nay. Why? I think "encyclopedias" are larger versions of dictionaries, providing basic background information but doesn't offer interpretations found by other writers.

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:32 PM
Nope, if you did that you would have to ban most of the sources people bring here anyway. Wiki is far more credible than most people would like you to believe, sure it's not perfect but it's a start. It's certainly a lot better than most youtube videos, beforeitsnews, any website with the word protocol in it and that type of thing.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:55 PM
I wanted to bump this thread for many reasons (after FIRST doing a search on Wiki/source check) !!!
For all the newbies, and some of the veterans.

Wiki is NOT a good source for, well, pretty much anything. This is why (and this is news to me, as I am a college freshman) high school and colleges condemn the use of wiki for a source. Here is the link from


information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:57 PM
a reply to: Serafine

However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: ReadLeader

I found this counterpoint to what you linked. I think wikipedia is a pretty reliable, in the main, go to site for a quick gen up on a subject.

April 2, 2015
While professors, scholars, and other academics in the early 2000s cautioned students not to consult Wikipedia at all when researching, attitudes concerning the popular online encyclopedia are shifting, according to some Harvard professors. Some professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences said they see Wikipedia as more acceptable, even as a website that students can peruse for somewhat reliable information. Although they still warned students to be wary when using Wikipedia, some professors no longer look at the site with the same criticism.

Harvard Crimson on Wikipedia

edit on 15-3-2016 by Jonjonj because: Format

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 05:03 PM
Yes. There's a lot of good information on Wikipedia, and while people can sabotage it, good wiki contributors are also constantly removing false information. It really annoys me when I link to a wiki page and people get butthurt about it. Grow up.

Unless someone can provide a better free encyclopaedia of everything then Wikipedia should remain a valuable source of information.

ATS is a public forum and as such should remain a place of casual conversation. When we type posts or argue with each other, we shouldn't have to write up college papers in MLA style. None of you are my professor.
edit on 3/15/16 by peskyhumans because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 05:49 PM
No wiki sources!

I say NO to Wiki sources.

You want proof of disinformation on Wiki? type in 911.

Wiki supports the official 911 narratives.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 05:54 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

One might say the same for blogs and biased websites.

When you get right down to it, there's very little online that you can completely trust in any way. The best one could hope for is vetting via numerous sites and hoping to get at what might be close to the truth.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:00 PM
a reply to: ReadLeader

Wikipedia is a good starting point. And then further research can stem from there.

I think there are plenty of other sources that should be banned ahead of Wikipedia.

Natural news springs to mind pretty quickly.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:07 PM
a reply to: Serafine

I say yes, it is no different than youtube, blogs or MSM etc. If something someone post from wiki isn't right someone will notice and point it out!

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:13 PM
Just like the US government you start controling the info.
When do you Stop ? !
and what infomation is Ever 100% ?
ALL sites have a agender.
especially ATS.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:29 PM
a reply to: masqua

Honestly, we should say the same for any source of information.

For example, quoting books from former CIA directors wouldn't be accurate since they still can't disclose classified information. So there would be lies of omission. And quoting academic studies is useless if the studies have been debunked (like the formerly esteemed papers on "racial sciences" like eugenics). We wouldn't even be able to post leaked information that is still technically classified (like the Manning & Snowden leaks), since all "credible" papers and reports would contradict the leaked information.

The same goes for many "credible" encyclopedias since each topic is limited to the knowledge and/or bias of its writers. For example, look into the Vietnam War articles. Do they also tell the facts from the Vietcong's perspective? Do they even bother interviewing the Vietnamese survivors to learn about the things that are still classified by the West? If not, it's also only telling a part of the story with literal lies of omission.

As for wikipedia, I think it's a good starting point for a lot of people. I like linking to it when I want to emphasize that something I'm mentioning is a real "thing" and not just some observation I have, like "The Southern Strategy", the "Starve the Beast" strategy, the "Fire Eaters", and "Bread and Circuses".

If I simply told people there were strategies and groups like this, people may ignore it as strictly being my opinion. But showing links that validate that they are established concepts and groups proves my point better. Of course, those people can do further research into the subjects if they choose to. I'm just showing that the subjects aren't simply figments of my imagination. And wikipedia is a great starting place for that (much better than linking to some random blog or site with a known bias).

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 08:28 PM
a reply to: pajoly

I agree.Wikipedia do get a lot of things right-and it should only be a starting point for research anyway.I say YES to keep Wiki.

What's people gonna want banned from here next? Carry on in this vein and soon only CNN will be allowed as source.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 09:21 PM

originally posted by: silent thunder
Count me very firmly in the pro-Wikipedia camp. Sorry if this has been said before (haven't read the whole thread, just the OP), but my reasoning, briefly:

1) If you have the ability to discern what is of value on ATS and what is not of value (as I am assuming most people reading this do, or at least aspire to) , then you can apply the same discernment to Wikipedia.

2) Even if you thing the Wiki article is worthless, the LINKS off of them are often the best first soucres for general info to go to on any given topic. That alone makes it an excellent resource; why re-invent the wheel?

1. I agree, somewhat. A 3 year old can add information on wikipedia, so it's not a reliable source of information.

2. Then just post the source links, it's easy to copy and paste. Why go to trough a website, when you can go to the source directly.

Whoops. Sorry, I didn't look at the date. I wasn't aware that this topic was an old topic that were bumped.
edit on 15-3-2016 by pompel9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 09:29 PM
a reply to: Serafine

Wiki has sources for verification. It's a good place to start at a very high level.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:01 PM
I vote yes on wiki. Any source can be suspect regardless of their credentials. And any source can provide excellent information regardless of their credentials. I got slammed for citing the Daily Mail and it turned out they were spot on. Unless you can show a list of acceptable sources I would suggest not starting any process of elimination without extreme due diligence. Even then, it is an undesirable pursuit.

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:33 PM
Of course Wikipedia should be allowed as a source.

Even a 5 year old knows to check the sources given in a Wikipedia article.

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in