• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Reliability of Wikipedia

I use Wikipedia for school papers mostly because tbh I don't really care whether or not I get my facts right, I just want to have facts. If it was a college thesis or something then that would be different, but... it isn't
 
Number 100 said:
re: scheming evil professors of doom who seek to rule the world push a point of view, professors are generally experts in their chosen field of study. Thus, their point of view is most likely an informed point of view (more informed than that of a 19 year old college student dabbling in said field who started the Wikipedia article on it, probably). Nor are experts always acting alone; they usually interact with other experts in that field, just like Wikipedia editors. An expert would also be under fire from her peers if she promoted an incorrect or malicious point of view, just like a Wikipedian would be reprimanded if he tried to push lies. If a particular point of view is shared by the majority of experts in a field, there is probably good reason for that. There are, of course, "experts" who hold disreputable positions, for example, the small percentage of scientists who think global warming is a hoax (and are motivated to make stuff up, probably by the funding given them by large oil companies that would stand to lose if more environmentally friendly energy sources were researched).

And per Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles use multiple non-trivial reliable sources, it is the position shared by the majority experts that ends up in the articles.
Click to expand...
My point wasn't that professors are bad. I wasn't attacking professors. I was defending normal people, because almost everyone in this thread is suspicious of them as a reflex. Most of Wikipedia is written by decent people who write trustworthy things, and the people you can't trust write glaring lies that you can spot straight away. Some lonely article which very few people read can not be counted on, but an ordinary article is read hundreds of times a day and changed every couple of hours. In this way, every ordinary article is systemically checked for lies, and there is no doubt that very important articles, such as Mathematics, are more accurate and thorough than anything Britannica has.
 
Last edited:
Reliability usually depends on the subject, like people, science, TV, etc. Articles for TV shows tend to get vandalized a lot with random stuff, and so do people. It kind of depends on the person for people, though, because someone like George Bush might get vandalized more often then someone like this dude, who no one knows about. I remember seeing Elizabeth I being vandalized though.

Stuff like maybe atoms, gravity, etc. might be more reliable because there's not really a reason to vandalize it. What can you make fun of in science?
 
It's like my dance teacher says: "You don't have to do it exactly right, but do it with conviction." If you'll use facts in an essay (where your writing abilites are valued higher) you could type in anything and the teacher probably wouldn't do more than add a red mark. And you can always check on earlier revisions of the same article and compare them.

When it comes to teachers, they're all very split. One is totally against Wikipedia, and warned us time and again: do not use it for the upcoming essay. Well, I used it anyway, got top score and not even a comment on the source listing, so I assume that it's fine if you know how to use it.

...there are also a few teachers who really like Wikipedia, but they're very few :(
 
Wikipedia is a good source, as long as you read the citations for facts that you're going to use. Trusting Wikipedia for your entire research paper isn't too good of an idea either, unless you verify the citations first. However, credible websites (like those with a .edu or .org extension) are still more reliable. Wikipedia can be a starting point, a repository for different sources of information, but to really get the picture, use a wide range of resources.
 
Wikipedia's good for quick info that has no real use. I also use it sometimes for a basis on which to search for more research. But you should not get all your information from Wikipedia. At least look at other sources and see if the information matches.

Then again, if Wikipedia isn't trustworthy, what is? Sure, there are supposed 'reputable sources' but who defines 'reputable'? Anyone can put words on a page.
 
I only use Wikipedia to find out something is, or maybe find good sources about something, but wouldn't use it for an important essay.

I do think the links on the bottom are really useful though.
 
I admit I use wikipedia a lot for research (the few times I do at least), but it seems I don't have much of a choice because it has info on it that used to be almost impossible to find before the wikipedia era.
 
No one is saying that you should use Wikipedia and nothing else. Use other sources, be wary when using Wikipedia, but never shut it out or scorn it irrationally. When someone has written 'he was hot' at the top of the page about Henry VIII, most of us, I think, get a hunch pretty quickly that the page has been vandalized and look at a previous edition of it instead; if after reading the comment a few times you are still not sure whether to trust it, as a last resort you can always look at the citation or the picture.
 
Last edited:
The problem isn't really with articles of historical figures or scientific concepts, though. People who are living today have articles on that site. Articles that can be edited by anyone. There's a story that hit the news a while back, about this Turkish professor named Taner Ackam who was detained at an airport because the Wikipedia article on him called him a terrorist. More recently, a vandal hit the Barack Obama article and plastered it with racial slurs. Google cached that version and removed it only when it was informed of the problem.

Sure, you might think that the idea of a self regulating encyclopedia is enticing, but you probably would change your mind if you were detained for an error in such an article.
 
These do not seem to me important problems. It is absurd for the police to use any kind of encyclopedia in deciding whom to arrest, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Is there anyone who can't tell that slurs are unreliable information?
 
they didn't let the man past airport security because wikipedia said something about him saying he was terrorist

that's stupid :|
 
what the hell- airport security officials... should really know better. but, a lot of people in the world are internet-illiterate.

Wiki's good if you want to refresh your general knowledge about things or if you want a springboard to possible other sites from which you can research. It has been endorsed by my science and math teachers- purely for the reason that no one cares enough to vandalize Young's Modulus or the Aufbau Principle or the like. However, people seem to get quite a laugh out of messing with most other pages, especially those of high-profile people.

The research paper trick is still pretty good though- when you're too lazy to search up real sources, use the Wiki page then copy the references section at the bottom to your works cited list. Works like a charm.
 
Wikipedia is okay. Really technical subjects are kinda unreliable (There was a mistake in the fundamental thermodynamic relation article that went unnoticed for quite some time), but generally, the articles are fine (albeit a little confusing sometimes).

Learn to check sources and you should be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom