Wikipedia?

1. 60

   Shealy Healyposted 13 years ago

   What do you think of Wikipedia?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      awirelessbusinessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It comes up during searches on most engines, so I look at the results, but since anyone can pretty much write whatever they want some things may not be quite factual. It is an interesting and useful concept businesses are embracing for internal use.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      awirelessbusinessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It comes up during searches on most engines, so I look at the results, but since anyone can pretty much write whatever they want some things may not be quite factual. It is an interesting and useful concept businesses are embracing for internal use.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      itcollposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is simply great.And i like them more since they are ad-free.

      replyreport
   4. 63

      Drew Breezzyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The answer to everything

      replyreport
2. 75

   thranaxposted 13 years ago

   I think it is a great source for information and will remain successful.
   
   ~thranax~

   replyreport
3. 0

   Jenny-Anneposted 13 years ago

   I find it really convenient for quick references - just to get a brief definition.

   replyreport
4. 61

   skristoffposted 13 years ago

   I use it as a start for all of my writing research.  I say as a "start", because I never use it as a primary reference.  I do take everything with a grain of salt, and follow up on the references used in each entry.
   
   It's also a useful place to look up answers to questions my 6 year old asks me, because he doesn't really care about citing sources yet.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Dao Hoaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is very true, kid only needs a reasonable answer. However, you should make sure it is not too far from the fact because your kid may find a correct one later. In that case he will not be you "fan" nay more!

      replyreport
5. 59

   TV Mount Guyposted 13 years ago

   I'll chime in and agree that it's a good source of quick info to many questions.  If you are doing real research, wiki should just give a guide of other sources to look into, but double check everything.

   replyreport
6. 57

   prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago

   it is a good secondary source for initially defining terms but not as a primary source for your research and actual writing

   replyreport
   1. 60

      K Partinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree pdh, a great secondary source, but I would still do my own research.

      replyreport
7. 60

   The_Bossposted 13 years ago

   It is one of my primary sources for research for school and other purposes. A lot of people say that since people can post whatever they want to, the information is wrong. However, this is false because each article you write or add on to is previewed and accepted by the wiki staff and their automated system. They can undo any changes that someone has erratically posted. I love using wikipedia and I will never stop using it.

   replyreport
8. 61

   Frugal Fannyposted 13 years ago

   Wikipedia is a great quick-reference resource, BUT....you have to remember that the articles are composed and submitted by average Joe Reader.  I have found that sometimes you need to double-check the information, as it can sometimes be opinion-biased.
   
   Also, even though I like it for quick look-ups....I have heard that a lot of schools here (western canada) won't take it as a valid research tool on papers.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      HubMercposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, so it's like the news media, then.  Got it.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      darksideposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thank goodness for that.
      
      It's good to get the gist of a topic by skimming through a wikipedia article. Then using the broad overview to have a better understanding when more research takes place.

      replyreport
9. 68

   lrohnerposted 13 years ago

   I've found some errors in Wikipedia, so I'm not a big fan. I actually prefer WiseGeek. Their overviews are spot on and much shorter than Wikipedia. I write for Demand Studios, and Wikipedia is on their blacklist of sites that we cannot reference or cite.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Lady_Eposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thats worrying - I find Wiki very useful and thought their info was well up-to-date. Will check out WiseGeek.
      Thanks

      replyreport
   2. 94

      Sue Adamsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Is that because the contributions come from the general public?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         skristoffposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I believe that Wikipedia is blacklisted as a source for Demand articles (as well as for other information portals) because it is considered a competitor.

         replyreport
10. 72

    relacheposted 13 years ago

    Wikipedia quality can vary widely.  Sometimes it's very informative and sometimes it's downright inaccurate.
    
    And many people using it for a reference can't tell the difference.
    
    I like to see the cited sources on Wikipedia entries and go actually read those.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       Patty Inglish, MSposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I agree. The info is often copied from other Intenet pages, all not peer-reviewed. I use Wikipedia only for references listed and some photos. Then I access references myself. Sometimes, they even no longer exist. Thanks!

       replyreport
11. 52

    media.geekposted 13 years ago

    be careful when using wikipedia as some information is wrong, anyone can post information about certain subjects that isn't always write. x

    replyreport
    1. 68

       lrohnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Ditto, ditto and ditto. Wikipedia may be spot on in some cases, and well off the mark in others.

       replyreport
12. 60

    Shealy Healyposted 13 years ago

    I think Wikipedia is great. Buuut, I am in the process of presenting to Wikipedia a term that is often used in alternative spiritualities. Because the word is not documented well-they are having a problem listing it.
    
    Clairgnosis

    replyreport
    1. 60

       ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Wikipedia is a good starting point, but can only be taken at face value.  NPR did a pretty good piece on the site her:
       
       http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … Id=4506421
       
       I think that people/students who rely solely on Wikipedia for the bulk of their research are short changing themselves and their audience.

       replyreport
       1. 77

          Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I definitely agree with that.

          replyreport
13. 60

    Shealy Healyposted 13 years ago

    Good article. Thanks Ediggity.

    replyreport
14. 56

    C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

    While some of the information may be slanted or plain wrong, the references are listed. Therefore it makes a good jumping off point for research.

    replyreport
15. 73

    rhamsonposted 13 years ago

    I think it gives you several points of view and sometimes gives you a broader report on topics.

    replyreport