Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

how reliable is wikipedia

  • 27-10-2009 03:44AM
    #1
    monty_python
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭


    settle an argument guys,

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


«1

Comments

  • #2
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭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.


  • #3
    Doc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Doc


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


  • #4
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭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]


  • #5
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    67.9%


  • #6
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    Edit: 73.49%


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Esel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,808 ✭✭✭✭Esel
    Not Your Ornery Onager


    Doc wrote: »
    More reliable then a slandered encyclopedia and more reliable then most other alternatives on the internet.
    Did you do that on porpoise?

    Not your ornery onager



  • #8
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭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. :(


  • #9
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭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?


  • #10
    bluto63
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭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.


  • #11
    artanevilla
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 12,673 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    CHD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,956 ✭✭✭CHD


    Wiki it


  • #13
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭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.


  • #14
    Linku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Linku


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


  • #15
    curry-muff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭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]


  • #16
    artanevilla
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 12,673 Mod ✭✭✭✭artanevilla


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


  • #17
    rizzee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,882 ✭✭✭rizzee


    73.49% of the time, it works everytime


  • #18
    IrishSerf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 231 ✭✭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


  • #19
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭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


  • #20
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,194 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    Brendan O'Connor

    It's accurate all right.

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


  • #21
    Irish Halo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Blisterman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,534 ✭✭✭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.


  • #23
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    davyjose wrote: »
    According to Wikipedia, not very ....
    But is that valid?


  • #24
    shampoosuicide
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 415 ✭✭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.


  • #25
    citizen_p
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭citizen_p


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


  • #26
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


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


  • #27
    **Timbuk2**
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 7,396 Mod ✭✭✭✭**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.


  • #28
    pwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭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.


  • #29
    Gone Drinking
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,814 ✭✭✭Gone Drinking


    Its perfect... for pub quizzes


  • #30
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    waitinforatrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭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.


Advertisement
Advertisement