how reliable is wikipedia

monty_python

settle an argument guys,

how reliable is wikipedia.?
do you belive everything you read on it??

liah

It's reliable enough. They do have decent quality control, most bullshít stuff gets cleaned up fairly quickly. But I wouldn't call it failproof. I'd check whatever they cite just to be sure.

Doc

More reliable then a slandered encyclopedia and more reliable then most other alternatives on the internet.

davyjose

According to Wikipedia, not very ....

As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.[77]

Jesus Wept

67.9%

Jesus Wept

Edit: 73.49%

Esel

Doc wrote: »

More reliable then a slandered encyclopedia and more reliable then most other alternatives on the internet.

Did you do that on porpoise?

ScumLord

liah wrote: »

It's reliable enough. They do have decent quality control, most bullshít stuff gets cleaned up fairly quickly. But I wouldn't call it failproof. I'd check whatever they cite just to be sure.

Check it on what? Google just leads straight back to Wiki.

liah

ScumLord wrote: »

Check it on what? Google just leads straight back to Wiki.

Erm.. the articles/books/whatever they cite at the bottom of each wikipedia article?

bluto63

If I need to find out a lot of information about a subject, I use it as a jumping off point, to lead me to other more reliable sources.

artanevilla

Well according to wikipedia a few years ago, Samuel L Jackson is a Bohs fan and can often be seen at matches in Dalymount with his family. Okay so general wikipedia nonsense. BUT, The Biography Channel obviously use wikipedia as a source, and when it came to them making a bio on him, they included this piece of information, much to the lols of the Bohemian public and indeed tabloids.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/in-off-the-post-jackson-no-gypsy-996441.html

CHD

Wiki it

ynotdu

I use it a lot{just like Irish Journalists do:)}
I find it hard to find articles that are neither unchallenged or Wiki itself requests more sources.
Usually when i find other sources to what has been said or what statement(s) are challenged i find the accuracy of Wiki to be close to 100%.
Propagandists are usualy seen through or their 'facts' proven to be lies.
It is not perfect but a great online resource IMO.

Linku

Some argue that Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopaedia available [citation needed]

curry-muff

CHD wrote: »

Wiki it

Here:

The reliability of Wikipedia, compared to both other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is often assessed in several ways, including statistically, by comparative review, by analysis of the historical patterns, and by strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Wikipedia process.

Because Wikipedia is open to collaborative editing and can be edited anonymously, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003 (not long after Wikipedia started in 2001, see History of Wikipedia) found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly--so quickly that most users will never see its effects "[1] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities."[2]

Studies[which?] suggest that Wikipedia's reliability has improved in recent years, and it is increasingly used as a tertiary source.

An investigation reported in the journal Nature in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors."[3] These claims have been disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[4]

artanevilla

Some argue that Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopaedia available URL="http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62713304&postcount=14"]1[/URL

rizzee

73.49% of the time, it works everytime

IrishSerf

Linku wrote: »

Some argue that Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopaedia available [citation needed]

It may be the hour but the simple things seem funny:p

ynotdu

IrishSerf wrote: »

It may be the hour but the simple things seem funny:p

Linku has obviously not seen the page about him on Wiki.

no citations needed but may'be blasphamy laws

IvySlayer

Brendan O'Connor

It's accurate all right.

It wasn't me, I found it like that.

Irish Halo

How reliable is wikipedia?

As already stated it as reliable as the sources of information cited. If the concept of citations and how to use them confuses you then wikipedia is completely useless.

Blisterman

It's usually pretty obvious which statements are false there.

Wouldn't use it for an essay or any coursework though.

I remember one college project we were given a week to research the history of Shoreditch in London. Three people came in with a complete copy and paste of the Wikipedia article. Same wording and everything. Tutor wasn't too impressed.

Terry

davyjose wrote: »

According to Wikipedia, not very ....

But is that valid?

shampoosuicide

all you have to do is check for citations at the bottom of the page. on a slightly related note, i kind of get annoyed at people who get shocked if you tell them you looked up a medical problem on the internet.

citizen_p

i use it...but its good to look at other stuff also

ejmaztec

Carlsberg should oversee it, then no-one would have any reason to question its accuracy (probably).

**Timbuk2**

Here's a scale - X marks its reliability.

Not reliable|--X

---

|Reliable

To sum up in words: Wikipedia is about as reliable as a wheelchair with pedals.

pwd

wikipedia is useful as a starting point for gathering information, and is not intended to be anything more than that. That is why they do not allow original research in the content. It's not reliable in itself, however as a starting point to finding more reliable information it is very useful.

Gone Drinking

Its perfect... for pub quizzes

hooradiation

to quote a better man than I

"[Wikipedia] is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information."

In short, about as much use as tits on a bull.

waitinforatrain

Wikipedia first taught me not to believe anyone that can't cite their source.

Then it taught me that if your source is obscure or complicated enough, nobody's gonna bother fact checking it.

IvyTheTerrible

pwd wrote: »

wikipedia is useful as a starting point for gathering information, and is not intended to be anything more than that. That is why they do not allow original research in the content. It's not reliable in itself, however as a starting point to finding more reliable information it is very useful.

That's what I think too.

In work, if I come across a topic I don't know a lot about, I would have a quick look at wikipedia for an overview, and then that would give me a better idea of what to look for in a more concrete source.

I HATE when I see wikipedia referenced as a reliable source in articles.

TheZohanS

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

To sum up in words: Wikipedia is about as reliable as a wheelchair with pedals.

http://www.juneauempire.com/images/080606/14451_500.jpg

genericguy

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

That's what I think too.

In work, if I come across a topic I don't know a lot about, I would have a quick look at wikipedia for an overview, and then that would give me a better idea of what to look for in a more concrete source.

I HATE when I see wikipedia referenced as a reliable source in articles.

I admit to occasionally being guilty of this, but I only do it if it's personal interest rather than part of my actual research. The referencing of wiki does my fcuking head in though, but i once had someone reference conservapedia as "scientific evidence" in an argument before... i cannot articulate how shyte that site is!

genericguy

TheZohan wrote: »

http://www.juneauempire.com/images/080606/14451_500.jpg

Zohan, you're a bold bastid. I love it :pac:

Reindeer

monty_python wrote: »

settle an argument guys,

how reliable is wikipedia.?
do you belive everything you read on it??

I made this edit a couple years ago - it stayed up for the majority of the day:

http://www.pbase.com/wyk/image/76676511/original

lostexpectation

find me something that's wrong?

people always make a mistake of criticising people that link to it as a source, but the sources are actually at the bottom of the wikipedia page, wikipedia is not a source its a encyclopaedia, people forget that. people who like to criticise it forget it on purpose.

eightyfish

lostexpectation wrote: »

people always make a mistake of criticising people that link to it as a source

It depends on what you look up. Science-related stuff is almost always accurate. Not a lot to f*ck with. Biographies etc are prone to wikivandalism.