jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (10 posts)

Do you think information provided in Wikipedia is correct?

73
pradiiphiraposted 4 years ago
Do you think information provided in Wikipedia is correct?

website like Wikipedia provide information on every subject and people can edit it, so I have dough is this all information is right? trustworthy?

reply report
0
JThomp42posted 4 years ago
Yes, I have a great deal of trust in Wikipedia. I have used it several times to get information for writing a hub.
reply report
85
lburmasterposted 4 years ago
Not trustworthy at all. Anyone can post on wiki. It does not count as a reference in school so I do not accept it either.
reply report
1. 44
  Borsiaposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  This has been changed so that it is harder to make false entries
  reply report
95
ChristinSposted 4 years ago
Yes and no. For the most part it is usually factual, however it is human edited and people can change entries. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference in research papers and the like for precisely that reason. That being said, if I am just looking up information about a random widget or whatever for my own knowledge, I have found useful information on wikipedia. If you are using it for any writing however, always fact check with a reputable source.
reply report
94
SidKempposted 4 years ago
The key to using Wikipedia is to think about the topic, and whether people are likely to want to be biased about the topic.

I avoid Wikipedia with regard to hot political issues such as global warming and abortion.

I use Wikipedia a great deal for science, engineering, and history.

I actually find Wikipedia to be very accurate - better than almost all newspapers - for current crises. It was a great help during the Boston Marathon bombings and Newtown, CT school massacre. I was able to learn what was going on without dealing with the drama and mis-information on the web, on TV, and even in newspapers.

Occasionally, I've been able to improve what I see on Wikipedia - a joy in its own right.

Used carefully, I think it is a great resource. And, note, my wife is a college professor who teaches students how to write research papers. She allows them to cite Wikipedia for background information as long as:
- the info is not central to their thesis
- the topic is not one that people have a lot of passion and biased views on
- the topic is not highly politicized (for example, the archaeology of Jerusalem)
- the article cites a wide range of up-to-date sources

Even if students can't often cite Wikipedia, it can be a great starting place for finding ideas and sources (in the footnotes) and for getting background on a subject.

It is a big help for me in fact-checking for my HubPages writing. And nothing I've published relying on Wikipedia has been challenged or criticized. I don't rely on it the same way when publishing articles in juried professional journals.

Wikipedia is linked to Wikimedia Commons, a great source for photos, and we can use all photos on Wikimedia Commons on HubPages.

So, if we know how to read it well and check each article's sources carefully, I find it is far more reliable than several others who answered here seem to think it is. I spend a fair amount of time on the site and use it to enrich a lot of my hubs.
reply report
87
brianrockposted 4 years ago
I'm a high school history teacher, and I _hate_ when I hear students say that Wikipedia is an unreliable source (usually because some other teacher told them that). It is an excellent starting point for any research.

Why is it accurate and reliable? The power of crowd sourcing. So many people are regular Wikipedia users that any inaccurate edits (i.e. vandalism) are found quickly and undone. Honest mistakes and errors are also edited out. A traditional editing process isn't a guarantee of 100% accuracy, and high school history books often contain errors (both outright factual errors as well as questionable interpretations of history).

It's generally a good idea to confirm something with a second source, but that's always the case. You should never believe something you read in one place - whether that's a newspaper, a website, a textbook, or Wikipedia. Do your due diligence, maintain a healthy level of doubt about what you read, and Wikipedia will be an excellent source of information for you.

As a random aside, I read Wikipedia on a daily basis. I don't recall ever coming across an example of vandalism, nor do I remember any major factual errors. As someone else noted, highly politicized topics are more prone to problems, but these topics are also more tightly controlled to prevent vandalism.
reply report
88
nanderson500posted 4 years ago
I think Wikipedia tends to be accurate when it comes to subjects like the sciences, math, etc. It also is careful to avoid libelous information about living people. Many of the articles about obscure topics or pop culture are often flawed, however. It's always important to look at the sources being used. Of course, some statements are not sourced at all, which is annoying.
reply report
1. 87
  brianrockposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The part about obscure topics is key: the more people that care about a topic, the more likely the power of crowd sourcing will create an accurate, detailed entry.
  reply report
84
Dennis AuBuchonposted 4 years ago
When researching or looking for information on topics Wikipedia comes up in the choices. I have found that there is great resources attached to much of the information that is posted on this site. The resources themselves are a great access which provides additional information about various issues and topics. Many times issues which are brought up and the resources for additional information has been useful in my writing. I have a wide array of topics on which I write and this site has been great each time I accessed the information available.
reply report