Who Trusts Wikipedia?

[Unstung]

Do you trust Wikipedia and its quality of information (what is your reasoning)?
I wonder this since I cannot use it as a source for essays.
I don't know how to post a poll here, though.

I personally do trust Wikipedia since it uses many sources and any errors would be cleaned up fast (or the error would usually be obvious and a joke).

 

[Hielor]

I personally do trust Wikipedia since it uses many sources and any errors would be cleaned up fast (or the error would usually be obvious and a joke).

This is not always true. Oftentimes errors can be less-than-obvious and persist for a very long time before being found.

For academic purposes, Wikipedia does still make a good starting point, as some of the references listed on the page can be good places to go for "real" sources.

Wikipedia itself, however, is not an academically sound source.

 

[tblaxland]

^+1. It is good to use as a starting point since the references are somewhat more relevant than what you might get from, say, a Google search. But for essay references, you want to use more substantial sources - specifically, sources that have been peer reviewed (or at least editor reviewed) before publication.

EDIT: For creating a poll, search the forum FAQ: http://www.orbiter-forum.com/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=poll&match=all&titlesonly=0. Also see Tex's Orbiter-Forum video tutorial.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Ditto to the above. NONE of my professors would accept wikipedia as a suitable reference. Entries have been edited for nefarious purposes, and only corrected after political damage has been done.

I think of it as I do the spell checker, great assistance but a terrible authority.

 

[Dambuster]

I mostly do trust it, but with conditions: if its neutrality seems remotely suspicious, and I actually intend to remember what I'm reading, I'll generally check it out elsewhere on the internet. Additionally, I find the talk pages are often useful in seeing if there have been past/present disputes about a page, in which case I'd definitely treat it with caution.

Also, I find it's great for understanding the basics of a topic, if not for the finer points.

 

[Wolfer]

Basically I think it's good for some fast personal research, but unacceptable for serious purposes since you would have to double check everything.

 

[Linguofreak]

It all depends what the subject is and what kind of quality I need.

For personal reading, it's generally good enough.

For an academic paper, it can be helpful for finding sources, but isn't trustworthy enough. Once or twice I think I've had a teacher actually tell the class to look at something on Wikipedia, but not often.

For anything horribly controversial, it's not trustworthy.

 

[insanity]

I usually start my research by reading the Wiki article about my topic(s). From there I get some good research avenues and begin going through peer-reviewed databases (like Lexis Nexus) for sources. I think wikipedia is a great starting point for most topics, but its not the ultimate authority and can only give as good as information as the people write and edit give it. So I wouldn't say I trust wikipedia, but I do think it often leads to better sources.

 

[Andy44]

I wouldn't use it for serious research, but it's good enough to back an argument with internet knuckleheads.

 

[Unstung]

As for the errors, I got somebody to change a word in the Space Shuttle article:

...is a fictional American spacecraft...

"Fictional" was taken down after a few minutes. For less popular articles, I have no idea when it will be fixed though. Wikipedia itself seems reliable. Articles would mention at the top if there is bias, poorly written, etc.
The references seem to be valid and useful (as I've also used Wikipedia before for the references on essays myself).

 

[Ark]

Generally, yes, they seem to do a pretty good job of moderating it. Really good for getting a quickie education on various subjects. However, it's not really credible enough to cite for argumentative purposes, in that situation it's usually better to work through the references on the Wiki page for something more detailed or relevant to your specific needs.

 

[Shadow Addict]

It's not usable as a reference really, but I use it compulsively if I'm curious about something. I know a few people who have found a bad article about something they know about and use that as evidence to discount the whole site, which I get angry at.

 

[tblaxland]

As for the errors, I got somebody to change a word in the Space Shuttle article:

...is a fictional American spacecraft...

^ I think you just proved why Wikipedia is not suitable as a reference... :dry:

BTW, have you read the Wikipedia articles on the topic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia

I know a few people who have found a bad article about something they know about and use that as evidence to discount the whole site, which I get angry at.

It is easy to discredit as a reference (see above), but as a research tool it is very valuable. Google is a very valuable research tool too, but you could hardly cite it.

 

[Bj]

^ I think you just proved why Wikipedia is not suitable as a reference... :dry:

BTW, have you read the Wikipedia articles on the topic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia


It is easy to discredit as a reference (see above), but as a research tool it is very valuable. Google is a very valuable research tool too, but you could hardly cite it.

or you could use something I think has been around a while.. maybe a book?

If your at a school, which most likely you are, your school should have subscriptions to major (+online) libraries. I have access to over 5 e-book library sources. (though I mostly use only 1, after all 10k books is a lot to go though)

If your at like a business then your company might have a subscription, or you might as well get your own personal account if you really need it that much.

Like;
http://www.questia.com

 

[jedidia]

Do you trust Wikipedia and its quality of information (what is your reasoning)?

I trust it in popular subjects, since these get revised rather fast. Controversial subjects are either marked that they are being debated, or you have to take the slightly leftist Wikipedia Bias into account. I don't trust it at all in dubious or exotic topics, because the whole entry was probably written by someone that had only a superficial understanding of the matter and noone bothered to check the entry.

^ I think you just proved why Wikipedia is not suitable as a reference...

I think he meant that he uses it to see what references they used on certain topics and then going to the source directly. It's something I tend to do every now and then too.

 

[Arrowstar]

I use it merely to obtain background information that I can use to do my own research in academically sound sources (journals and the like). I also use its sources as a spring board for internet searching, as has been mentioned above.

 

[Sky Captain]

While we are not allowed to directly reference Wikipedia at university it usually is a good starting point with links to journal articles and books which can be used to quickly expand my search.

For general purpose uses like to quickly get background information on some subject I`m just interested in wikipedia is good enough for me.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

I think Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but it should never be used alone.
When i do research i always look for 2-3 different sources that say the same thing before it makes it worth including in any essays.

 

[Urwumpe]

^ I think you just proved why Wikipedia is not suitable as a reference... :dry:

It is easy to discredit as a reference (see above), but as a research tool it is very valuable. Google is a very valuable research tool too, but you could hardly cite it.

Wikipedia is already considered legal reference in courts of Germany, as long as you cite a specific version of an article (by date).

While it is not perfect, and easy to cheat in Wikipedia, it is also easy to detect the bad edits, in a good article, that has references and footnotes.

 

[ar81]

I use english wikipedia. Spanish wikipedia stinks.

Once I found a wikipedia entry on psychology that was quite a rant that advocated macho culture and jealousy. In that matter, for spanish readers, monografias.com offers better information.

In english, I recall I read great many things about actor David Tennant. In spanish, the page seemed to be written by gay community and used references to tabloids only, not the best aspects of his work. Of course I reported that to BBC.