No. Wikipedia can be changed by anyone. There was a situation a while back where a famous person's information was wrong on Wikipedia and two newspapers printed his obituary wrong.
I also read that Wikipedia was changing information to coincide with statements made by Sarah Palin in an interview which were clearly wrong.
Reputable schools and colleges will not take Wikipedia as reference material and we should all double check anything we read there.
No,though it has lots of valuable information but it cannot be considered a reliable source.Anyone can edit its content so one can expect a few errors and misleading facts.
Wiki is good to get some quick short facts. However, if writing an article, get your facts from websites that end in .org or .edu. Got to websites that specialize in that field. That's your best bet when researching for articles. Wiki is more like a cliff note package of true/false facts.
Wikipedia is good if you're just looking for general info and you don't really care if it's exactly accurate or not. It is a good starting place for research papers because of the sources always listed at the bottom. At least some of those sources are usually reliable.
A tricky topic this is!
I for one have used Wikipedia as a guide, not a source! It is very rare that you find any pages that have been tampered with for some kids amusement. Although I can't stress enough, never tell your teachers or lectures that you used Wikipedia, just don't even mention it's name!
I really only use Wikipedia for trivial things. For example, if there's an actor in a movie who I know I've seen before but I can't quite pinpoint where... Those kinds of facts are pretty simple and not so easy to be tampered with. Otherwise, if I'm looking for more meaningful info, I find that Wikipedia can be a little erratic in what it provides and a headache to read. A good Google search often reaps much better results.
Wikipedia is like what a stick is to a blind person. Dogs are better if you want to cross the road.
Wikipedia can have its uses, however it shouldn't be someone's sole research source.
Though honestly, if you read enough articles on Wiki, eventually you will be able to tell which ones have been "edited"/tampered with to include wrong info
Hahahaha! No. Wikipedia is known for letting almost anyone to write on their pages. I can go on there and add a word that does not exist, then I can write about it as if it does exist and write down anything I want to put this word into. I can also go onto other words or people's stories and write anything I desire to. It is not reliable AT ALL.
I like Wikipedia, but like any source, there is a possibility of incorrect or misleading information. I try to find many different sources so I can properly analyze the facts and make my own decisions about what to believe.
It's not useless. Wikipedia really just cuts to the bone to give you the "rinsed-down" gist of some topic. Once you get the big picture view to help you understand, you can begin your proper research with multiple sources. I have made corrections on Wikipedia before, but they were relatively minor. But then again, I have read commercially-published secondary source historical non-fiction by reputable businessmen, historians, or even professors from Columbia University or Harvard and found many mistakes where they got many facts wrong, including dates and years of historical events! That's hard to believe, but these guys are clearly not edited thoroughly. Wikipedia is good for peaking your initial interest and giving you a general understanding of a topic to be taken with a grain of salt. Commercial secondary sources are good for giving you multiple perspectives--or in some case, the mainstream perspective on a topic. Periodicals are good for showing what the ordinary people knew or know, while also giving various mainstream perspectives. Professional, scholarly secondary-source publications, which are rarely found in book stores, tend to focus more thoroughly on the particulars of a subject. They are often a bit more factual and scientific than the commercial publications. Finally, you have the primary sources--excluding periodicals. These are the least accessible, yet most interesting of all. The only thing that can be considered 100% accurate on them are the dates.
Wikipedia, is really good. But i can't believe all of this . because any one can change this.
I guess Wikipedia is meant to be read not to be believed.
I think it will be wrong to ask 'Do you believe Britannica?'.
Encyclopedia articles are into describing things and not on convincing people. If a listing is wrong, then it can be corrected by the community.
Take for example:
There is a Chief Justice(head of the highest court) in the Philippines who will undergo Impeachment trial in the Philippines this month. Some haters went to his Wikipedia page and replaced his title to 'Thief Justice'.
Well, if you go back, you will see it's corrected.
The good thing about Wiki, it is easy to correct things in a timely fashion.
Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, I can not argue that fact.
But we can't deny the fact that it has useful information that we need
So I guess is Yes and No..
That's why we are humans we listen, learn and make our own
by agusfanani 5 years ago
Is Wikipedia reliable and accurate as a source of information ?
by Scott P Williams 4 years ago
I got some comments offline about several hubs but especially the "Fake News" hub. I definitely don't site my sources the way I should because most of my topics are so well established and known that the sources are usually wide and deep . Anyhow, long story short. Here is an example of...
by WindMaestro 5 years ago
Is Fox news reliable?I have always wondered this, because they are labeled as biased. Is this true?
by Kelley Eidem 9 years ago
My main squidoo page has generated lots of sales for me.But despite sending 700 inbound visits in one day from a targeted outside source from to my main hub page, it has produced $-0-.I produce important, top quality information that is highly desirable. Squidoo enables me to promote a little. On...
by Melody Trent 6 years ago
Can you cite Wikipedia in a college paper?My professor told us to cite trusted sources only. Do you think it is a bad idea to cite Wikipedia in a college paper?
by Ken Burgess 17 months ago
The revelation to some, that Congress & D.C. has been in general hijacked by Corporate, Foreign, and Special Interests run amuck... is too much to swallow for many.CNN & MSNBC has long been the propaganda media for these Corporate, Globalist, etc. establishment forces, and so they, along...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|