Why do people try to use wikepedia as a credible source?

That's like saying that something is true b/c the guy next to you says so.

How much faith do you put in the information you find there? Do you confirm it? If you find it's wrong, do you feel like an ass if you edit it?

 

According to Wikipedia, you don't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=kenwastinger&go=Go

 

By this logic, how can you credit anything as a credible source. It all just comes from "some guy" at some point.

 

Wikipedia pwnz j00!!!111!1!!11!!!!1!111!!1!!!!etc..



Go n-ithe an cat thú, is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat.

 

For the most part the information of Wiki has been edited, re-edited, and confirmed by multiple users of the site. Because of that, most of it is true. All in all, though, some false information might leak through. I wouldn't go to my death relying on the site, but I trust it for the most part.

It's about the same as trusting IMDB.com or some random band official site. Nothing in this world is absolutely true.

 

Same can be said about you Angus http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=young+angus

 

actually, in my university, most professors let you cite wikipedia in a paper, as long as you dont use it as your primary source.

 

Because:

"...its free distribution, constant and plentiful updates, diverse coverage, and versions in numerous languages have made it one of the most-used reference resources on the Internet."

 

Article

Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found ? including misinterpretations of important concepts ? four came from each source, the journal reported.

 

Wikipedia shouldn't be used for research or in any serious debate, but it's okay to use as a casual reference.

 

I do research and case studies on wireless networks for my internship. For us wikipedia can be used as a starting point. By that I mean read something wikipedia might say about Time Delay Duplexing (TDD) and then use that information to find more credible sources. In a lot of wikipedia articles there are a lot of good links at the bottom of the page for more information.

 

2+2=4



[image=http://www.funnypart.com/pictures/FunnyPart-com-canadian_airforce.jpg]



PWNED!

 

You're a dingle shnitz.

 

I'd say if you want to get a quick briefing on something very fast, Wikipedia is the way to go. Otherwise go to the library.

 

Don't make me bring the Navy in too!



[image=http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/canadian_navy.jpg]

 

I use it as a starting point, then branch off from there. But I do like to read random articles from time to time.

 

*Turns into a pile of dust and is then blown away by a gust of wind*

 

I'd say it's about as reliable as IMDB, more right than wrong. However, you can find some ridiculous "facts" on both sites.

 

It's an easy and quick way to find info about most topics. But a couple of entries arent correct, it's fairly easy to put false info up there just for kicks, so Im always pretty cautious before really trusting their info.

 

Wikipedia is pretty reliable for things like dates or other basic facts. If I'm doing any sort of serious research, I tend to go to Wikipedia for the "external links" sections.

Warrior_of_Mandalore Strikes Again!

 

Wait, so you mean Capt. Picard, Sean Connery and Brian Peppers were never at the Yalta Conference?

 

Nope. Only Picard.

Warrior_of_Mandalore Strikes Again!

 

Hey! Canada takes pride in their navy. Thats our best ship.

 

Wikipedia is excellent if you want to know anything anytime, but I wouldn't rely on it to back up my thesis. You always should use more than one source when researching something, anyway.

 

There's no such thing like "credible source".