Do you trust Wikipedia?

[Tsuyoiko]

Here is what the much-maligned, though much-quoted, Wikipedia has to say about itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

So, do you trust it?

[bossel]

Wikipedia is good for quick info on some stuff, but if you want to be well-informed you need more sources. Esp. on controversial issues you should look at other sources as well.

[Kinsao]

In a word, no.

It's still very interesting, and also can be a useful source of getting a lead on some information, as long as you check your infos from other, more reliable sources too.

Also, it's pretty good on stuff which is known to be subjective anyway, for giving you a handle to think about your opinions.

[TwistedMac]

not in the slightest. it consists of a discordiant mob, giving information that may or may not be accurate depending on the exact time you choose to access it.

the most common defense to my main argument "it's made by whomever!" is that it gets corrected by people and evolves into correct info. which means if I happen to want the info before the right info has been agreed upon I get flawed info, right?

and even when it has been agreed upon, there's no guarantee it's correct. many things through history has started with "contrary to popular belief..." and wiki is just that, popular belief when "corrected" enough times.

[No-name]

Wikipedia is a good starting point. Encyclopedias tend to have a lot of articles on everything imaginable, but with little depth. They are also prone to errors- with some articles significantly worse than others. I think I saw a study somewhere that it is no less reliable than Britanica, but that both showed a few significant instances of error. Wikipedia was also the target of some fraud, but to their credit it was corrected. For some things it is quick and reliable enough. For others, you need to do more work.

[MeAndroo]

I only use wikipedia for things that aren't often disputed, like info on music, movies, and certain historical figures. I also look at articles regarding things I know about and try to find errors. It certainly isn't perfect, but it has a wide range of topics and odd tangential articles related to said topics.

[Pachipro]

After reading a story in an editorial and stories in The Tennessean, our local newspaper, by John Seigenthaler, a name known in Tennessee, on how his character and biography was trashed in Wikipedia and connected him to the assissanation of Kennedy and the Nazis, I have come to lose some trust in it. They do provide some useful info, but they also say they do not research facts that are presented to them for publication. For important info it would wise to check other sources as bossel, Kinsao and others have said.

You can read all about his fight to clear his name from none other than Wikipedia themselves here.

[No-name]

That was the incident of fraud that I mentioned

[afailedaffair]

In a sense I trust Wiki, because both sides will keep tearing at the article till it's as least biased as possible.

[-rika- shinya`]

i trust it to a certain point. it's not always correct but otherwise, it's a good place to get information for a starting point like said above and there are links if you want further in depth information

[Puff]

I feel indifferent about this. I don't normally used it though unless I needed too, even some of the info on certain things are incoorect.

[No-name]

Encyclopaedia Britanica has errors in it. Not many, but some stay there for decades. At least wikipedia, because of the medium, corrects the errors a bit quicker. The larger problem is that the articles breed like rabbits and there is simply no possible way to keep them all plumb and square.

[Silverbackman]

IMO wikipedia is a great source for backround knowledge. However deeper research is needed for a more well-rounded grasp on the concept.

[Minty]

I am sure most of their articles are relatively accurate, but I know for a fact that some are incorrect. I would never use them as a source in an important paper or something where the validity of the sources would be questioned in depth.

As long as people understand what it is - a good perspective, but not the last word - I think its great.

When people do things like cite Wiki articles in research papers its a problem.

[Dutch Baka]

Well I think for normal things like, What is Manga, list of presidents of the U.S.A. and that kind of things I think it is a Fantastic website. But indeed like some of you guys say, don't trust everything that controversial issues, for example Nanking, homosexuals, and so on. But still it can give you some good BASIC information that you need to know.

But my question then is, where can you find trustfull information about controversial issues?

Ps. I use Wikipedia EVERY F..KING DAY, because that is the only website, that isn't blocked on my work.... the sad thing is, they blocked the pictures last week... I'm such a poor kido... but HEEE.. Love the Info.

[Hideki_Matsui_Beast]

I use it all the time, but like everyone else has pretty much said, I take a lot of caution in putting a lot of faith in it.

I use it mainly for entertainment purposes, like looking up information on music and celebrities that I like. I guess it wouldn't exactly be the end of the world if some of that stuff was wrong.

I'd never use it for a research paper or anything.

I once looked up George W. Bush and all the page said was "bush sucks lol." I agreed, of course, but it didn't do me much good for what I was looking up.

[Dutch Baka]

So how about, really putting some links up here, for the people who DONT trust wiki... please share that with us.

*do not put a link that is Incorrect, because of the color of an Ipod...

[MrsAmberface]

yeah so i never have

[Reiku]

I use it all the time, but like everyone else has pretty much said, I take a lot of caution in putting a lot of faith in it.
I use it mainly for entertainment purposes, like looking up information on music and celebrities that I like. I guess it wouldn't exactly be the end of the world if some of that stuff was wrong.
I'd never use it for a research paper or anything.
I once looked up George W. Bush and all the page said was "bush sucks lol." I agreed, of course, but it didn't do me much good for what I was looking up.

Ah but the question is: Was it more accurate than This Article?

Seriously though, Wiki's a good resource--but like everything, you shouldn't accept what it tells you without question. After all, there's no magic spell that keeps other encyclopedias accurate despite bias and human ignorance either.

[Chris]

What can you really trust? Healthy scepticism should be applied to everything, but if something comes free and without an overt agenda, it's got my vote.

[Inaki]

Do you trust Wikipedia?

I'll answer this question with a question. Do you know better source of information that's more accurate than Wikipedia?