[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by 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.

I happen to agree with you.

I often go to Wikipedia for "general" information, but also do not count on it for absolute accuracy. When I want the "gospel" on a subject, I Google the topic and draw from a number of different reliable sources and compare them.

[kittygilchrist]

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

Thank you frosty, I was not very subtle. I changed the spelling of states in United States To Arab emirates. It was also my first post...a giveaway for troll snipers.

It's interesting to see that somebody actually watches on Wikipedia, because I do find it a reasonably better place to find things than my own head.
However when I really need to know for sure I look for EDU sites or Google scholar or journal articles, etc.

[blueash]

Wikipedia is extremely accurate with facts. While errors can be introduced either intentionally or erroneously they will be corrected. For fun google Wikipedia versus Britannica and you will find that for science topics, names, dates etc the accuracy is equal. It is excellent for history, medicine, science, biography.... Like any reference one should never depend on a single source but for people to simply repeat the Wikipedia is unreliable meme suggests they have not done their research.

To its credit there is even a Wikipedia page on the reliability of Wikipedia.

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by 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!

Is verbatim copying/posting of wiki material here or anywhere for any reason and without citing the material not called plagiarism?

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by blueash

Wikipedia is extremely accurate with facts. While errors can be introduced either intentionally or erroneously they will be corrected. For fun google Wikipedia versus Britannica and you will find that for science topics, names, dates etc the accuracy is equal. It is excellent for history, medicine, science, biography.... Like any reference one should never depend on a single source but for people to simply repeat the Wikipedia is unreliable meme suggests they have not done their research.

To its credit there is even a Wikipedia page on the reliability of Wikipedia.

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

blueash - Have to seriously disagree!

There is no sure way to know if info is erroneous or corrected and not time line for insuring when erroneous info will be realized and corrected. And the arbitration process for correction has more holes than ages swiss cheese.

W vs B is great as you post for science - and for nature - articles...not necessarily so for material re the Villages and government issues.

Really? - give full credence to a defense prepared by the violator [re your wiki reliability website]?

To say that anything wiki is to be fully trusted and considered reliable indicates that folks HAVE NOT done their research.

[kittygilchrist]

Originally Posted by blueash

Wikipedia is extremely accurate with facts. While errors can be introduced either intentionally or erroneously they will be corrected. For fun google Wikipedia versus Britannica and you will find that for science topics, names, dates etc the accuracy is equal. It is excellent for history, medicine, science, biography.... Like any reference one should never depend on a single source but for people to simply repeat the Wikipedia is unreliable meme suggests they have not done their research.

To its credit there is even a Wikipedia page on the reliability of Wikipedia.

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you ask me, I could tell you that I'm infallible. That would not make it true.

[Halibut]

I use wiki a ton to find answers to common things (that I can no longer remember!) such as TV series episodes and summaries, breaking news, pop culture, biographies, dates, geographical info, prescription drugs, diseases, lists of holidays, etc. I used it this morning to find info about a mezuzah. Sometimes I specifically search it but if not, it's usually one of the first items on the search results list, and Google often puts an excerpt from it in their results page sidebar.

The wiki editors are good about adding a disclaimer to pages with disputed content and their list of references is a nice starting point for further research if needed. As everyone has said, it's not the end all and be all of online research, but I appreciate it enough to make annual contributions to their fund-raising drives.

[zcaveman]

I use Wikipedia to look up answers to quizzes and crossword puzzles. I use it to find quick answers to history questions, etc. Since I am not using it to write a report for school or trying to back up something for a business discussion, I am happy with it.

Z

[graciegirl]

Wikipedia.

If it says The Villages is wonderful...it's right.

[DruannB]

Earlier poster mentioned Google Scholar. Librarians warn students not to rely on Google Scholar. Articles are not peer reviewed, which means even my mother (glad she doesn't follow this forum) could post to Google Scholar.

[SoccerCoach]

Originally Posted by 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.

Kitty , oh so easy! I feel if one needs information, DO THE RESEARCH ! One man's opinion is just that. You usually have to work at something to get it right, that includes research.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

You can check Wikipedia for fact but don't take them to be 100% factual! They are not.

[Bonanza]

I think everyone would agree that Wikipedia is a "go-to" source for general information. Many times they are 100% correct.

However, to be sure, it's wise to Google your topic and read what other sources say.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

I think everyone would agree that Wikipedia is a "go-to" source for general information. Many times they are 100% correct.

However, to be sure, it's wise to Google your topic and read what other sources say.

General info but not necessarily reliable info - and sites having to do with science and nature having greater credibility than other topics.

And one could always skip wiki and go straight to an internet search.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

General info but not necessarily reliable info - and sites having to do with science and nature having greater credibility than other topics.

And one could always skip wiki and go straight to an internet search.

That's exactly what she meant.

And I agree with Bonanza that it's a good springboard to get to other sites for researching, especially if you know nothing about the topic and are looking for ways to google info on it.