[Bonanza]

I recently had a very nasty private message from someone.
This person said, among other things, that Wikipedia was an "unreliable" source.

That got me thinking . . .

I often go to Wikipedia for information
and have found the information gathered there,
to be informative and reliable.

I'm curious to know what others think of the site.

[onslowe]

The person who described the Wikipedia site as 'unreliable' may well have been parroting what he or she heard others say back when it first started. It did seem to have the potential to be filled up with inaccuracies and plain outright lies by whoever wanted to contribute.

But, now after a good number of years, and additional scrutiny and security, I think it is quite reliable - at least as a gateway into a topic, if not even more. I've seen errors or 'close calls' but they're far and few between.

I always use it.

[bkcunningham1]

What's Wrong with Wikipedia? § Harvard Guide to Using Sources

[Mr.Kris]

The earlier post "Another Newbie question re: bonds" was confusing because at one point it discussed the bonds related to the infrastructure, i.e. sewer, water, etc., and at another point it discussed bonds related to the purchase of the recreation facilities from the developer by the VCCDD. These are different bonds for different purposes under different structures. Apples and oranges. The IRS is not disputing the tax exemption of the bonds for the infrastructure.

I was surprised that Bonanza’s explanation on the bonds for the recreation facilities came from Wikipedia. I thought he had summarized it from the supporting material between the developer and the IRS found here. Village Community Development Districts I have read every document listed here, at least twice, and can find no factual inaccuracies with Bonanzas’ earlier post. Read it and decide for yourself.

[CFrance]

In my former job as an editor, we would not allow our employees to use wikipedia to fact check. There were too many errors.

Just recently, I was talking to my son about wikipedia and how unreliable it is, and while we were on the phone, he got on wikipedia and totally changed facts about the Pittsburgh Penguins and was able to have the misinformation saved and put online. Of course he immediately went in and changed it back, but his point was how easy it is to change what's on wikipedia.

I use it to look up answers to things for my own curiosity, but I would never rely on it for research purposes, and if I really needed a definitive answer, I would look elsewhere.

[Skybo]

Well, I'm sure it contains many accurate entries, but it also has the potential to contain many inaccuracies. And there is no way to know the difference unless you already know the facts or are able to verify it through other sources.

Wikipedia.org has five pages of "content disclaimers", including this statement which can be found at the end of their disclaimers:
"DO NOT RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION FOUND IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION" (the caps are theirs, not mine)

So, I guess it depends on what you are using it for. I personally wouldn't use it as my sole source for accurate information.

[njbchbum]

From the pages of wiki, itself:

"Almost anyone who can access the site[4] can edit almost any of its articles." - no control over editing unless in the area of science.
"Wikipedia has earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news.[12][13][14] In addition, Wikipedia's high openness compared to previous encyclopedias and its inclusion of much unacademic content have received extensive media attention." - reputation for news rather than anything academic.
"Wikipedia's high openness has also led to some concerns, such as the quality of its writing,[15] vandalism and the accuracy of its information.[16][17] However, while some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information,[18]" - exception being greater accuracy n areas of science.
"An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor and is not vetted by any recognized authority.[27] Rather, editors are supposed to agree on the content and structure of articles by consensus. - no vetting."
"By default, an edit to an article immediately becomes available. As a result, articles may contain inaccuracies, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text until an editor corrects such deficiencies"
"Edits misidentified by a bot as the work of a banned user can be restored by other users" - even wiki bots make errors.
"Edits misidentified by a bot as the work of a banned user can be restored by other users" - editing wars to be resolved by consensus!!!
"The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution method. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how articles should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on which view should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and focuses on the way disputes are conducted instead,[61] functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate." - what a committee!

As a high school teacher how accepting they are of wiki in any student bibliography!

[DruannB]

My university prohibits the use of this source. It's the old garbage in, garbage out. Since entries are not peer reviewed or fact-checked, as others have said, anything can be posted. I've found many errors in my area of expertise. However, I do feel that it is useful to jump start research and idea generation.

[kittygilchrist]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.p...on=signup-edit

In order to edit the above Wikipedia page about the villages, I had to provide a username and password. It took about five minutes to edit this page. I edited something in the second line, see if you can find it. Glaringly inaccurate...

I never attempted to edit a Wikipedia page before. It's the simplest thing ever to do.

[cattywampus]

MISS "KITTY".


Your change to Wikipedia re: The Villages FL has been changed back
to the original.
We suggest that you go to the "Sandbox" page to practice and do other changes.

Yours,

FROSTY
..............


OUCH !!!!!
THAT MEANS
You have been caught already by the magic Wikipedia Person-in-Charge.

NOTE; even "THE TATER has been Catched"
that is right. they have also caught THE TATER

[sunnyatlast]

I always look at the source articles footnoted at the bottom of the page.

I think ANY website page should be examined with scrutiny and compared to other .edu or .gov sources when available.

Using it to support opinion commentaries here is not the same thing as citing it in high school/university research papers or objective news reporting!

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by cattywampus

MISS "KITTY".


Your change to Wikipedia re: The Villages FL has been changed back
to the original.
We suggest that you go to the "Sandbox" page to practice and do other changes.

Yours,

FROSTY
..............

OUCH !!!!!
THAT MEANS
You have been caught already by the magic Wikipedia Person-in-Charge.

NOTE; even "THE TATER has been Catched"
that is right. they have also caught THE TATER

Well, that didn't happen when my son made the changes to the Pittsburgh Penguins wikipedia entry. His changes were accepted and the entry was changed. We talked for an admittedly short while, and he changed it back. So... what if you are doing research, and you happen to land on something that has been changed but not caught yet?

It's unreliable. They are getting better at policing it, but it's still not to be trusted for research purposes. I would only use it as a springboard to other research.

[cattywampus]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Well, that didn't happen when my son made the changes to the Pittsburgh Penguins wikipedia entry.
His changes were accepted and the entry was changed. We talked for an admittedly short while, and he changed it back. So... what if you are doing research, and you happen to land on something that has been changed but not caught yet?

It's unreliable. They are getting better at policing it, but it's still not to be trusted for research purposes. I would only use it as a springboard to other research.

MISS "KITTY' made her change to The Villages, FL on Wikipedia
and it was caught within 3 minutes.

Have no idea what her change entailed.
"SWAG" approach would suggest a spelling change was made.
Spelling changes are generally caught within 5 minutes.

("SWAG" approach is "Scientific Wild Ass Guess")

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by cattywampus

MISS "KITTY' made her change to The Villages, FL on Wikipedia e fou
and it was caught within 3 minutes.

Have no idea what her change entailed.
"SWAG" approach would suggest a spelling change was made.
Spelling changes are generally caught within 5 minutes.

("SWAG" approach is "Scientific Wild Ass Guess")

My son's were not spelling changes. They were fact changes. They were not caught within three minutes.

However, the fact remains that the original information someone put up on the Pittsburgh, Penguins, for example, could have been incorrect. We found many incorrect facts on widipedia when our captioners were using it for fact checking. It's a fun site but an unreliable source.

[Taltarzac725]

I like Wikipedia as a gateway; then you check the footnotes if the article has any for accuracy. And then also check out what had been referenced.

Let's talk Turkey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey