Neverside

wikipedia accuracy

A friend called me on quoting wikiepdia all the time.

Like, he'll ask a question, wtf is this, wtf is that.

and I'll always wiki it. He questioned the validity of wikipedia, citing an article that the president of his college's page on there was vandelized and that wikipedia can't be trusted as anyone can change it.

I argued that i trust wikipedia even more, because anyone can change it. The mass media is the opinion of just one person or small group of people.

where do you stand on this? any articles proving either point?

I'm curious, I've always been so quick to grab wikipedia.. but he had a valid point.

bring on the discussion! and a poll, because i'm good like that, muahahaha

___________________

:: pop ::

Quote:

any articles proving either point?

Are you asking for an article from Wikipedia?

I personally feel that Wikipedia is an accurate (and great) source of information, I use it all the time. The amount of information I've learned from it is... Astonishing.

i make sure anything i pull of wiki has another reference

___________________

angelessme, antagonising neverside members, staff and administration since 2001.

with wiki you have you get another source, i know i've seen articles that are inaccurate, a friend of mine wikied his father (a well known poet) and found at least 10 mistakes. wiki is a great research tool, but you should always have a second source of info if you use it to write a paper

___________________

yeah i did it

Wikipedia, to me, is only useful when one needs a little push to get ideas rolling. It may contain information that's not usually published in books, and because of that, may be innacurate on a number of counts...

___________________

Signature Guidelines

Originally posted by bleedwithme:

Are you asking for an article from Wikipedia?

lol no, i mean like if you'd read somewhere an article reviewing wikipedia in all its goodness.

___________________

:: pop ::

On Wikipedia I've found that, in general, anything politically related usually tends to lean towards the liberal mindset. But in general I've found Wikipedia to be a pretty accurate source of information.

If you've ever looked at Wikipedia from the inside out, it eliminates a lot of concerns for validity. They're rindiculously anal about citing sources, even for common knowledge. There are exceptions here and there, but exceptions occur with everything. There are cases where Wikipedia is more accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the OED of encyclopedias. If you're still concerned, scroll down the citations.

And I agree with you about trusting Wikipedia even more because anyone can edit it. Vandalism is possible, yes, but Wikipedia---being what it is---is 10 times more likely to attract helpful- and academic-minded people than it is to attract vandals, just as a subway is more likely to attract passengers than graffiti artists. The graffiti seems more prominent, though, doesn't it? What sticks out about Wikipedia isn't the everday info; it's the vandalism.

Anything that doesn't have sufficient citations gets tagged, and if that isn't tended to soon enough or things just don't seem right, the article is marked for deletion. They can also lock articles (from unregistered users, and even further, I suppose, but I've never seen them lock it from everyone) if things get too bad (e.g. the KKK article, which seems to always be on lockdown).

___________________

Free-Speed Nation

Last edited by Sykil, October 19th, 2006 04:50 AM (Edited 3 times)

its a great source but i always look elsewhere as well, cross referencing.

I've heard and read surveys from both sides, here's a score from Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia%20accuracy%20britannica

I dig Wikipedia fo sho. Actually I work at a newspaper that just ran a story on professors who are angry about the kids citing Wikipedia.

___________________

Jon Culver Chia Pets