Long Subject heading I know, hit the max character limit right on the nose.

First let me make abundantly clear that I DID A FORUM SEARCH for this and found no threads about this or even similar to it. So, if there are other threads like this I did not see them and apologize, feel free to report this and have it locked. Anyway, on to the point.

A lot of people claim Wikipedia is untrustworthy because anyone can write anything on it, but have you ever tried to write false information on there? They have quite a few systems in place to ensure that fallacies don't make their way onto the pages, and in the event that they do, are quickly removed.

Most pages require a certain amount of credibility in order to modify anything at all on them (Meaning you have to have been a member for a certain amount of time and have contributed verified information, citing your sources, cleaning up other people's entries and overall, just helping to maintain the site). The few that don't can have anything posted on them, by anyone, yes. But all updates to all pages are moderated, and anything that is obviously false, or cannot be properly verified is usually removed quite quickly.

I personally have never had a problem with it, I've never read something on it that I later found to be untrue. In fact I use it as a resource to further inform myself of current events, historical events and other basic knowledge. I do not, however, use it as a source for papers or essays, because my university (Like most others) discourages this, and I would be penalized.

So...what are your views on Wikipedia? Love it? Hate it? Couldn't care less? Let's hear your thoughts.

love it

Can't get enough of it. Anytime I need information on something and don't feel like trudging through Google results, I can just wiki it... And usually find it.

Sometimes the information's wrong, true... But it's usually easy to spot. If it's well written, and cites sources, it's probably true. If it sounds like it was written by a dyslexic middle-school student and cites no one whatsoever, it's probably worth a second Google scan.

So, yeah. My rating is thumbs up. Love it.

I love Wikipedia. Normally I would be suspicious about something like that, where so many people depend on it but it could be changed by anybody. But I only occasionally see some "irellevant information"- as in, 12 year olds who thought it would be hilarious to write profanity into articles about their town.

But Wikipedia's so damn useful, I can't help but worship it.

I think its great but I can understand why they dont uni stuff.

Whenever me and this guy I know argue about bands he blames wiki or uses it as an excuse "Tears for fears originaly wrote Mad World then whats-his-name coverd it for that movie in 2001" "No way thats crap!" "Uhh look it up on wiki" "Phht anyone can edit that its not true"

Yeah... It's quite interesting to see how the ignorant masses deride Wikipedia because they heard anyone can go and edit it and that it must therefore be so absolutely incorrect that a penguin could tell you more factual information than it can. They just don't know what they're talking about.

There was a newspaper article around 2 years ago that compared the reliability of Wikipedia to the reliability of Britannica. Wikipedia was found to have around 6 errors per article while Britannica was shown to have 5 per article.

How do you like that, ignorant masses, huh?

The correct answer to the question in the thread title is:

Yes.

I think it is one of the best ways to get a general feel for a issue,Same way Urban Dictionary can also be used for a wonder what that is/means type of situations even if it is not always 100% perfect at least gives you a brief idea and where your headed.

It sure as hell beats tudging through a search engine for ages ond still not finding a thing

Not everyone likes Wikipedia. Here's an example http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.71419 (Not promoting my own threads, honest).

I just use it to find a few movies. Altough, a small piece of me dies, when I see a fellow escapist use this site for references.

Wikipeidia is our version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Wikipeidia is our version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I agree with you, and that makes me love it even more.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Wikipeidia is our version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Quick, somebody edit the Earth article to say: Mostly Harmless.

So long as Wikipedia is not used academically and remains unbiased, with articles showing different viewpoints I do not see the harm in using Wikipedia for fact checking, so long as you are prepared to double check your findings on occasion.

It makes getting information much easier. It's a central base with comprehensive coverage of every topic. On Google, you may be searching through tons of sites to get the one fact you want. But on Wiki you can just find it, click the cite, and you have a source ready to go. That's the secret to using Wikipedia in school, you don't cite Wikipedia, you cite who Wikipedia cites for the facts you want.

I see it more of just a collection of knowledge more than anything.

Eggo:
Keeping in line with the Douglas Adams love, Wikipedia is what this site should have been:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/

First time I'm seeing this site...Seems like it should have been great. Now I want to re-read those books again...

Random argument man:

I just use it to find a few movies. Altough, a small piece of me dies, when I see a fellow escapist use this site for references.

The problem is that wikipedia isn't a 'site'; it's a collection of webpages. The quality of them can vary wildly. For example, the page for Goths (historical, not people in dark clothes) uses the works of Heather, Wenskus, and Wolfram as secondary references. These are the three most important historians when it comes to Gothic history. Clearly there's nothing wrong with using such a page as a reference on an internet forum. No one here is going to get a Ph.D. badge from The Escapist Website and University.

+++++

The problem is people don't understand what a 'reference' or 'source' is. A reference or source is not a Letter of Marque that allows someone to act like an asshat because what they said has a 'source'. A source is meant to show that the poster isn't just pulling what they are saying out of thin air. In the end, the poster is still responsible for his or her post no matter how many sources they may have.

Acting as if Wikipedia is a bad source (as opposed to objecting to it in a research paper because it is a tertiary source and not a primary or secondary one) is kind of like the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Just because someone printed something and was born before you does not make them an authority. The quality of their work makes them an authority, and if the quality of a Wikipedia page is pretty good, well, what's the big deal?

Shivari:
It makes getting information much easier. It's a central base with comprehensive coverage of every topic. On Google, you may be searching through tons of sites to get the one fact you want. But on Wiki you can just find it, click the cite, and you have a source ready to go. That's the secret to using Wikipedia in school, you don't cite Wikipedia, you cite who Wikipedia cites for the facts you want.

I see it more of just a collection of knowledge more than anything.

Precisely, Shivari.... Sorry, you have a name that's cool to type :P

Why is it that schools have been taken in by this myth that Wikipedia is *the* most unreliable source of information known to man? Are they being paid off by the encyclopaedias, or do they want to appear "discerning" and "intelligent" by recommending that their students don't get information from Wikipedia?

Jobz:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Wikipeidia is our version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I agree with you, and that makes me love it even more.

Heh, it does!

In fact, there was a site that was even *more* like that back in the day called altculture.com. It was basically a Wikipedia for the Alternative '90s. It had entries on everything from Burning Man to Culture Babes to Zima Gold. Man I miss that page.

Really, that's another value of Wikipedia: the kind of cultural history that is too ephemeral to be cataloged anywhere else (besides maybe the WayBackMachine) is preserved on Wikipedia.

jamanticus:

Why is it that schools have been taken in by this myth that Wikipedia is *the* most unreliable source of information known to man? Are they being paid off by the encyclopaedias, or do they want to appear "discerning" and "intelligent" by recommending that their students don't get information from Wikipedia?

Because schools are dumb and should worry about teaching kids the difference between a primary, a secondary, and a tertiary source in the first place, only half the adults probably don't even know the difference.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Really, that's another value of Wikipedia: the kind of cultural history that is too ephemeral to be cataloged anywhere else (besides maybe the WayBackMachine) is preserved on Wikipedia.

Yup, and where else can I get things like the entire discography of a band I like (Including singles and B-sides that were never even released) or the full, detailed time line of killing sprees by some of the world's most notorious serial killers? (Very grim, I know. I'm a fucked up individual.)

The only bias and opinions tend to be on pages for politicians. False information tends to be on pages for both politicians and celebrities.

Other than that, no one is gonna screw up a page about a novel, or anything.

I like it.

zen5887:
I think its great but I can understand why they dont uni stuff.

Whenever me and this guy I know argue about bands he blames wiki or uses it as an excuse "Tears for fears originaly wrote Mad World then whats-his-name coverd it for that movie in 2001" "No way thats crap!" "Uhh look it up on wiki" "Phht anyone can edit that its not true"

I love that song.

I have no problem with Wikipedia, in fact I think it is the most reliable source of information on the internet because unlike most websites it has references.

In my experience, only articles of non mainstream topics can be assumed to be reasonably free of opinion. Otherwise you get trolls, and idiots.

Things I look at on Wikipedia are so obscure, no one would ever try to edit them for stupidity's sake.

It depends on what you are looking for.

Sciences are well represented, languages too. Politics and philosophy sadly take a hit, especially politics. Entertainment (at least american entertainment) is well off.

Overall, it works given it's nature.

Wikipedia hasn't failed me before.

I may not trusteverything they write, though.

Still better than conservapedia.

so far wikipedia has bestesd most of the facts sites that i have been.
that and i find it entertaining that the thing im learning about has something to do with something i never knew was connected.
that and the videogame storylines are very well done.
i didn't have to buy the soul series of games and i learned all i wanted to know about it, that and the guilty-gear series

Lord Krunk:
Wikipedia hasn't failed me before.

I may not trusteverything they write, though.

Still better than conservapedia.

Trying to study quarks from looking at a rat's entrails is guaranteed to bring you closer to the truth than reading anything in conservapedia.

My opinion is confused as I see the reasoning behind both sides.
On the one hand, there are apocryphal tales of terrible edits. I'm sure many are true. Moreover, I can't tell you how badly written even the most accurate Wiki article can (I stress can) be compared to an ordinary encyclopaedia.
On the other, Wikipedia has never let me, personally, down on matters of fact (that I know of). I've also heard of a study in which The Great and Eminent Encyclopaedia Britannica was faced off against Wikipedia on randomly chosen articles. Wikipedia was found to have 1/3 more mistakes, which is really quite impressive considering one is quite authoritative and the other is written by Jow Blow.
The greatest defence I've heard for it (massively paraphrased) is this: "If you want to know where Jerusalem is do you ask Professor Heinesman with a PhD in Pretentiology or do you ask a friend whose from Israel? Wikipedia is written by those people." Much of the opposition to Wiki is just sniffiness.
Wiki: a great general resource and starting point, but take it no further.

I've never had a problem with Wikipedia. Then again, everything I look at is video game stuff or music information, which will result in a cascade of angry emails if they get something wrong.

Saskwach:
Wiki: a great general resource and starting point, but take it no further.

No, that's what its sources are there for.

As you can tell, I'm for Wiki. It's a nice thing for some quickly needed information. I even use it to understand topics for school, though I stopped citing it in Year 8.

Edit: Better than Conservapedia, that's for sure.