Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
bigjoester99

Is Wikipedia Unreliable?

Wikipedia   29 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Wikipedia reliable?

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      15
    • Not Sure
      5

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

37 posts in this topic

Is Wikipedia really reliable enough to use? I've heard people say that it is un reliable, but I'm not sure. All I know is that I use it way too much.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's unreliable, but you shouldn't use it as a primary source for research of any kind. When I want to know something, I use it as a platform for getting the basic information I want then I follow links at the bottom in the reference section. And doing a Google search will direct you to other sites. It's just too easy for trolls to go in and randomly make changes - putting crude comments in place of entire articles or even just slipping them into an article. The concept of Wikipedia might've been good, but to put it to practical use is impossible.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a great place to start for some general info. I know people can change it, so it's not totally reliable. Wiki pages often link to published papers and other sources that may be more reliable.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually it gives sources, unlike some of the members on UM.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends what you are looking for, as tertiary source it is reliable enough, but the main objective of those (and that includes any encyclopedia) is to point you to primary sources.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried to look up Wikipedia on Wikipedia and I might've created a baby black hole.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make it more reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider it reliable enough to cite as a source. I never use it as an only source for any subject. I do consider it fairly reliable as a resource for a general overview and sources depending on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider it reliable enough to cite as a source. I never use it as an only source for any subject. I do consider it fairly reliable as a resource for a general overview and sources depending on the subject.

Not to try to rain on your parade: No dictionary is authoritative enough but to be quoted as a non disputable source,and that includes Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bearing in my mind that a Wikipedia page can be edited by anyone, a certain degree of skepticism is needed as for the acuracy and reliability when using it for informations.

That said, I do think Wikipedia is a great body of knowledge, open for the public to contribute. Often but not always the references of the article is provided at the bottom of the page. So, I would certainly not dissuade people not to use it, but to at least try to validate with a third party the informations found in it.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think Wikipedia is unreliable?

Try looking at RationalWiki.

Oh my god, my bluffed meter detector just exploded!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see how messed up fundies and creationists are, check out www.conservapedia.com. Pure crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think unreliable as in the information not being correct, but it can be inconsistent in the amount of information and the way it's presented. The problem I think is that the people who contribute articles can present them in their own style, and what I think it could really do with is some editing to present the information in a consistent style. There does tend to be too much of it that's people's opinions rather than facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's unreliable, but you shouldn't use it as a primary source for research of any kind. When I want to know something, I use it as a platform for getting the basic information I want then I follow links at the bottom in the reference section. And doing a Google search will direct you to other sites. It's just too easy for trolls to go in and randomly make changes - putting crude comments in place of entire articles or even just slipping them into an article.

really? I've never found that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see how messed up fundies and creationists are, check out www.conservapedia.com. Pure crap.

I was sure that must be a joke, along the lines of the Onion.

The causes of homosexuality are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice.

The Bible, being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since the Fall. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality

:santa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really? I've never found that.

A lot depends on the topic; if you are looking up something obscure, about all you find is the propaganda, but if you are looking up something that gets a lot of hits, inserted junk gets uninserted.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes wiki is unreliable.there are lots of errors on there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know at least one case where a "fact" noted on Wikipedia is used elsewhere on the web, and these mentions are used to justify the Wikipedia "fact".

Bottom line is, it's easy to become an editor and make sure Wikipedia is more reliable. Almost as easy as complaining about it.

Edited by Xynoplas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found many errors myself. Nothing on Wikipedia should be taken as gospel.

It is written, updated, and edited by users — both experts and total non-experts!

Incorrect information is read, believed, and remembered, and then takes on a life of its own.

I remember the satirist Alan Coren saying that he regularly went on Wikipedia to correct his birthdate,

but people would go on there and change it back.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is open-sourced, which means that anyone with an account can edit the information..

If the information has proper citation, it's reliable.

If not, then *farting noise*.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see how messed up fundies and creationists are, check out www.conservapedia.com. Pure crap.

I had to go here and immediately read what there dinosaur article said. Good fun!

I use Wikipedia for a hub to research just about everything, valid references are easier to find there than with a Google search

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've edited wikipedia articles before, Usually articles of my favorite bands and sportspeople.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to go here and immediately read what there dinosaur article said. Good fun!

I find most their articles painful to read.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sure that must be a joke, along the lines of the Onion.

I just checked out the site. I really hope you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is open-sourced, which means that anyone with an account can edit the information..

If the information has proper citation, it's reliable.

If not, then *farting noise*.

Well I have all kinds of problems with a lot of the citations -- they aren't "proper" in that they are from propaganda sources or, even worse, don't support the assertion in question.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.