Is Wikipedia a reliable source for information?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75bc2301592b.png[/atsimg]
The more I use Wiki the more I am starting to second guess what I read and see.
I don't really have a reason for feeling this way, it just somehow became more and more prevalent.
I know how the site works and why it works but sometimes I have to ask myself, 'Does what I'm reading sound right or is it right?'.
It wouldn't take much for some to use this as a weapon of disinformation or personal agenda.
And more and more I see people relying on Wiki and taking everything that is posted as correct, without hesitation.

The truth is more important than the facts. ~ Frank Lloyd Wright

Do any of you feel the same way about this. . .

to be honest....No, it is not reliable..

although, some articles are very good and accurate,and it is a great source for finding information, but you cant fully trust what you read on there..

Well, what is a reliable form of information?

Truth is always dependent on who, what, where and when!

I do not believe it is (since anyone can go in and edit it) and most (if not all) Universities and Colleges do not allow it to be used as a source.

Why ask such a question when anyone can edit the information on there?
2nd

Hmm, think of it this way. At my local Community College, they consider Wikipedia not reliable and should not be used in for research.

I cross-reference, check out the citations, etc. I wouldn't take Wikipedia as 100% fact.

I would have to say no also...

The college I attend will not let you use it for anything...if I cite it as a source my essay is immediate garbage.

That pretty much says it all...it's manipulated material with no peer review required.

Tests rating Wikipedia against other encyclopedias show it to actually be pretty reliable, but it's true it can't be a primary source of info for the reasons cited above. It is very good for factual information, i.e.: Info on cities, geography, and other stuff that is not controversial. But if you get into anything the least bit political, whether it's global warming or, say, a biography of Bush, then it winds up being a sick joke. There are people who take it upon themselves to be watchdogs over certain issues and will be quick to re-edit if someone makes a change not to their liking.

So, when it is good it is very very good; and when it is bad, it is horrid.

reply to post by TheMessenger1


I ask because I find many people, even on here, quoting Wiki as a source.
I ask it because when ever I type in something it usually appears at the top of the google search lists.
I find it odd and nefarious that such a website has infiltrated our information data base.
Wiki to me can only do more harm now then good.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
I cross-reference, check out the citations, etc. I wouldn't take Wikipedia as 100% fact.

That is what I tend to do and I hope most people would do since anyone can edit/post rubbish on there. Although I think the site is a good starting point for researching stuff before looking elsewhere to confirm.

Wikipedia isn't reliable but the sources cited at the bottom of whatever you were searching for usually are. I've used wiki's off site sources for lots of college papers.

As posted before, I think its a great starting point and checking the sources is very important. Great starting point though.

reply to post by AnteBellum


For non controversial science and information that isn't regarding a current business or person.

It's mostly reliable especially if it is referenced well.

Wikipedia is a more reliable source than anything you'll see on a mainstream news network.

So that's a plus.

Its as reliable as any other source of information out there.... meaning no its not very reliable, but it can be a good starting point for finding other means of research. Look at it this way; my School History book cited Columbus in the discovery of America.

Its wholly dependant on what your looking for, if you want, say, a list of all the beatles albums and their tracks then thats probably gonna be accurate, on lesser known of wiki's your relying on just one or two people contributing what they know about the subject and so is open to their personal feelings on the matter.
At the end of the day i could go on there now and probably edit the information on nuclear technology, and i know nothing about that at all!!
Just be wary!

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I do not believe it is (since anyone can go in and edit it) and most (if not all) Universities and Colleges do not allow it to be used as a source.

edit on May 26th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

obviously, most universities want you go to their campus bookstore and pay $780 for an 80 page history textbook, that bleeds red, white and blue.

you know, the one were it has 3 sentences on slavery and omits every broken treaty they made with the native americans and their descendants and still refuse to honor.

I agree that it's okay if it's not a controversial topic. Like finding capitals, historical dates, etc. Just general information.

But I believe it becomes exponentially less reliable the more controversial the topic gets.

obviously, most universities want you go to their campus bookstore and pay $780 for an 80 page history textbook, that bleeds red, white and blue.

Our campus does not offer this text book...which one is it?

I have yet to see any text book that is $780 in our book store...so what campus is this book on?

I thought we were talking about Wikipedia anyway...whew!