How trustable is Wikipedia as a source of information?

[phoenyx]

Recently, some people have been citing Wikipedia as the reason they distrust a person or a website. I have always believed that Wikipedia can be a good starting point for research, but frequently isn't a good ending point. For more on why this is the case, I'll quote the work of an academic on the subject:
**
There are a variety of reasons to distrust Wikipedia.

1. Anyone can make it say anything he will. Several years ago I was listening to my favorite sports-talk radio station (1620 The Zone, Omaha) and the two hosts were editing someone’s Wikipedia biography live, on the air.
2. Most of those who create and maintain entries are anonymous. Whatever its virtues, anonymity licenses irresponsibility. Anyone can claim expertise about any topic.
3. A real, actual, professional reference would be edited by an accredited scholar or even a team of scholars. The entries would be written by scholars. The entries are supposed to be fair, clear, and professionally written. To be sure, this is no guarantee that every entry is completely accurate but Wikipedia does not even begin with these basic protocols and safeguards. It is ostensibly democratic but actually a sort of digital oligarchy.
4. It is easily manipulated by PR companies and others who have professionals devoted to “curating” and manipulating entries.
5. The guardians of Wikipedia can be worse than its entries and authors.

**

Full article here:

Why You Should Not Trust Wikipedia - The Heidelblog

In my classroom the quickest way to fail an assignment or possibly even the entire course is to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source. I have been expressing concern about Wikipedia as a reliable source for information for almost as long as the Heidelblog (or its predecessor) has been in…

heidelblog.net

 

[GLASNOST]

Recently, some people have been citing Wikipedia as the reason they distrust a person or a website. I have always believed that Wikipedia can be a good starting point for research, but frequently isn't a good ending point. For more on why this is the case, I'll quote the work of an academic on the subject:
**
There are a variety of reasons to distrust Wikipedia.

1. Anyone can make it say anything he will. Several years ago I was listening to my favorite sports-talk radio station (1620 The Zone, Omaha) and the two hosts were editing someone’s Wikipedia biography live, on the air.
2. Most of those who create and maintain entries are anonymous. Whatever its virtues, anonymity licenses irresponsibility. Anyone can claim expertise about any topic.
3. A real, actual, professional reference would be edited by an accredited scholar or even a team of scholars. The entries would be written by scholars. The entries are supposed to be fair, clear, and professionally written. To be sure, this is no guarantee that every entry is completely accurate but Wikipedia does not even begin with these basic protocols and safeguards. It is ostensibly democratic but actually a sort of digital oligarchy.
4. It is easily manipulated by PR companies and others who have professionals devoted to “curating” and manipulating entries.
5. The guardians of Wikipedia can be worse than its entries and authors.

**

Full article here:

Why You Should Not Trust Wikipedia - The Heidelblog

In my classroom the quickest way to fail an assignment or possibly even the entire course is to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source. I have been expressing concern about Wikipedia as a reliable source for information for almost as long as the Heidelblog (or its predecessor) has been in…

heidelblog.net

I agree with you 100%. A good starting point ... nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

Recently, some people have been citing Wikipedia as the reason they distrust a person or a website. I have always believed that Wikipedia can be a good starting point for research, but frequently isn't a good ending point. For more on why this is the case, I'll quote the work of an academic on the subject:
**
There are a variety of reasons to distrust Wikipedia.

1. Anyone can make it say anything he will. Several years ago I was listening to my favorite sports-talk radio station (1620 The Zone, Omaha) and the two hosts were editing someone’s Wikipedia biography live, on the air.
2. Most of those who create and maintain entries are anonymous. Whatever its virtues, anonymity licenses irresponsibility. Anyone can claim expertise about any topic.
3. A real, actual, professional reference would be edited by an accredited scholar or even a team of scholars. The entries would be written by scholars. The entries are supposed to be fair, clear, and professionally written. To be sure, this is no guarantee that every entry is completely accurate but Wikipedia does not even begin with these basic protocols and safeguards. It is ostensibly democratic but actually a sort of digital oligarchy.
4. It is easily manipulated by PR companies and others who have professionals devoted to “curating” and manipulating entries.
5. The guardians of Wikipedia can be worse than its entries and authors.

**

Full article here:

Why You Should Not Trust Wikipedia - The Heidelblog

In my classroom the quickest way to fail an assignment or possibly even the entire course is to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source. I have been expressing concern about Wikipedia as a reliable source for information for almost as long as the Heidelblog (or its predecessor) has been in…

heidelblog.net

Wikipedia is good for non controversial things and as a 1st lookup to get the gist of something.

For more polarizing topics, take it with a grain of salt, and look at the "talk" page to get an idea of the ideologies behind the people editing the articles.

 

[White 6]

Recently, some people have been citing Wikipedia as the reason they distrust a person or a website. I have always believed that Wikipedia can be a good starting point for research, but frequently isn't a good ending point. For more on why this is the case, I'll quote the work of an academic on the subject:
**
There are a variety of reasons to distrust Wikipedia.

1. Anyone can make it say anything he will. Several years ago I was listening to my favorite sports-talk radio station (1620 The Zone, Omaha) and the two hosts were editing someone’s Wikipedia biography live, on the air.
2. Most of those who create and maintain entries are anonymous. Whatever its virtues, anonymity licenses irresponsibility. Anyone can claim expertise about any topic.
3. A real, actual, professional reference would be edited by an accredited scholar or even a team of scholars. The entries would be written by scholars. The entries are supposed to be fair, clear, and professionally written. To be sure, this is no guarantee that every entry is completely accurate but Wikipedia does not even begin with these basic protocols and safeguards. It is ostensibly democratic but actually a sort of digital oligarchy.
4. It is easily manipulated by PR companies and others who have professionals devoted to “curating” and manipulating entries.
5. The guardians of Wikipedia can be worse than its entries and authors.

**

Full article here:

Why You Should Not Trust Wikipedia - The Heidelblog

In my classroom the quickest way to fail an assignment or possibly even the entire course is to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source. I have been expressing concern about Wikipedia as a reliable source for information for almost as long as the Heidelblog (or its predecessor) has been in…

heidelblog.net

Yes. Good place to start for background. They are usually pretty good and keep their site pretty straight. Have suggested an edit to correct on an article (stair construction, not politics) and you can see who wrote or edited, not that you usually know of them. I happened to at the time, as it was an industry rep I had worked with.

 

[rightwinger]

I like Wikipedia
Nothing on the internet is even close.

They source their information. They also challenge questionable information real time.

Bad information can work its way in, but it is usually cleansed in a short period of time

 

[$ecular#eckler]

For the most part, I do use Wikipedia as a starting point for understanding subjects. There is no reason to cite Wikipedia - it is not copy-righted.

I have been using Wikipedia for research for 12 years. I do not quote from it, but I am not afraid to lift passages and reword them. But my research does not include much citing of any research, because I am the lead in opening the field to a reliable theory.

 

[phoenyx]

I like Wikipedia
Nothing on the internet is even close.

They source their information. They also challenge questionable information real time.

Bad information can work its way in, but it is usually cleansed in a short period of time

For some subjects, I agree. For others, not so much. However, one thing that is good- while their page may have bad information, frequently their links actually set the story straight.

 

[phoenyx]

For the most part, I do use Wikipedia as a starting point for understanding subjects. There is no reason to cite Wikipedia - it is not copy-righted.

Citing sources isn't just about copyright, it's also about letting others know where you are getting your information from.

 

[deannalw]

A few years back on another board, far away....

I used the number 147 all the time. Don't know why, but there it is. A lot of other folks started using it and pretty soon, there were jokes about plagiarism and such.

Anyway...one of my friends went to wiki and created an entry that claimed I was the inventor of the number 147. It was funny as hell and eventually got taken down.

Trust them zero

 

[TNHarley]

Wiki is fine as long as you go to the cites at the bottom and check those out.

 

[Likkmee]

Country stats, city stats Some historical stuff. Democratic sex education printable pamphlets

Semen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JoeMoma]

I like Wikipedia for nerdy technical topics like looking up math/science formulas. There are millions of nerds in the world that create and update such topics and they tend to do a good job.

 

[TheParser]

Recently, some people have been citing Wikipedia as the reason they distrust a person or a website. I have always believed that Wikipedia can be a good starting point for research, but frequently isn't a good ending point. For more on why this is the case, I'll quote the work of an academic on the subject:
**
There are a variety of reasons to distrust Wikipedia.

1. Anyone can make it say anything he will. Several years ago I was listening to my favorite sports-talk radio station (1620 The Zone, Omaha) and the two hosts were editing someone’s Wikipedia biography live, on the air.
2. Most of those who create and maintain entries are anonymous. Whatever its virtues, anonymity licenses irresponsibility. Anyone can claim expertise about any topic.
3. A real, actual, professional reference would be edited by an accredited scholar or even a team of scholars. The entries would be written by scholars. The entries are supposed to be fair, clear, and professionally written. To be sure, this is no guarantee that every entry is completely accurate but Wikipedia does not even begin with these basic protocols and safeguards. It is ostensibly democratic but actually a sort of digital oligarchy.
4. It is easily manipulated by PR companies and others who have professionals devoted to “curating” and manipulating entries.
5. The guardians of Wikipedia can be worse than its entries and authors.

**

Full article here:

Why You Should Not Trust Wikipedia - The Heidelblog

In my classroom the quickest way to fail an assignment or possibly even the entire course is to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source. I have been expressing concern about Wikipedia as a reliable source for information for almost as long as the Heidelblog (or its predecessor) has been in…

heidelblog.net

I have heard the same thing: People can edit the articles willy-nilly.

So I do not trust Wikipedia when it comes to controversial topics.

In fact, I rarely visit that site.

Like many other people, I go there to get a general idea about a topic and then try to find more trustworthy sources.

 

[whitehall]

Wiki will give you the basic rundown on a search but can't be expected to give the whole story. Even the generalized history books contain conscious or unconscious bias and sometimes withhold facts that might not be politically unpopular. It doesn't mean the history books are lying but sometimes certain facts get in the way of the agenda.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

My favorite thing about the website is how informative it is where learning about my favorite celebrities are concerned.

God bless you and my favorites who are still here always!!!

Holly

 

[alang1216]

Recently, some people have been citing Wikipedia as the reason they distrust a person or a website. I have always believed that Wikipedia can be a good starting point for research, but frequently isn't a good ending point. For more on why this is the case, I'll quote the work of an academic on the subject:
**
There are a variety of reasons to distrust Wikipedia.

1. Anyone can make it say anything he will. Several years ago I was listening to my favorite sports-talk radio station (1620 The Zone, Omaha) and the two hosts were editing someone’s Wikipedia biography live, on the air.
2. Most of those who create and maintain entries are anonymous. Whatever its virtues, anonymity licenses irresponsibility. Anyone can claim expertise about any topic.
3. A real, actual, professional reference would be edited by an accredited scholar or even a team of scholars. The entries would be written by scholars. The entries are supposed to be fair, clear, and professionally written. To be sure, this is no guarantee that every entry is completely accurate but Wikipedia does not even begin with these basic protocols and safeguards. It is ostensibly democratic but actually a sort of digital oligarchy.
4. It is easily manipulated by PR companies and others who have professionals devoted to “curating” and manipulating entries.
5. The guardians of Wikipedia can be worse than its entries and authors.

**

Full article here:

Why You Should Not Trust Wikipedia - The Heidelblog

In my classroom the quickest way to fail an assignment or possibly even the entire course is to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source. I have been expressing concern about Wikipedia as a reliable source for information for almost as long as the Heidelblog (or its predecessor) has been in…

heidelblog.net

Every source should be questioned but I think Wikipedia is one of the best. It is policed by EVERYONE, what you find is that anyone can edit a page but the edits will be checked very quickly. What other source even comes close.

If you don't believe me go to Trump's page and make up an accusation, see how long it remains.