Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information?

[marylander1940]

I don't use Wikipedia

 

If you didn't, you wouldn't have to ask questions such as "Are any of his family members still alive?". It's not 100% reliable on everything, but pretty darned close. There are millions of people fact-checking the entries and sources of information. It also tells you if any entry is less than reliable.

 

I use Wikipedia to check spelling of name like Walter Lippmann. I have a good memory otherwise ?

 

 

How many university professors approve of their students replying on Wikipedia? Zero is my humble guess

 

Here!

[+ WilliamM]

Here!

Here what? Do you actually disagree. Ask your family members in college?

 

Name a historian who uses Wikipedia? Or a popular historian like Robert Caro who has written many books on Lyndon B. Johnson and still has not reached the last years of his presidency

Edited April 15, 2021 by WilliamM

[marylander1940]

Here what? Do you actually disagree. Ask your family members in college?

 

I already said I trust Wikipedia, and I know you and I disagree.

[lonely_john]

I find Wikipedia to be fairly reliable for historic records of general knowledge in the most diverse topics but one always needs to go to alternative sites to double-check the most up-to-date information of current topics, especially if the topic is highly technical, or ever-changing, such as medicine or software/technology.

[+ WilliamM]

I find Wikipedia to be fairly reliable for historic records of general knowledge in the most diverse topics but one always needs to go to alternative sites to double-check the most up-to-date information of current topics, especially if the topic is highly technical, or ever-changing, such as medicine or software/technology.

Wikipedia may be a good place to start, but not to finish.

[Smurof]

The danger of Wikipedia is the ability for it to easily be hacked, which is awful.

 

I've professionally added on to someone's biography, only to find it deleted a couple of days later.

 

It's frustrating when I read information about people or places that are flat out lies, granted it's rare. Our "gossip as fact" culture isn't helping.

[CuriousByNature]

I find Wikipedia to be fairly reliable for historic records of general knowledge in the most diverse topics but one always needs to go to alternative sites to double-check the most up-to-date information of current topics, especially if the topic is highly technical, or ever-changing, such as medicine or software/technology.

This is how I use Wikipedia.

[+ WilliamM]

Some fan created a fake Wikepida page for my younger brother when he worked with the wolves at Yellowstone National Park.

 

Quite accurate too

[marylander1940]

Some fan created a fake Wikepida page for my younger brother when he worked with the wolves at Yellowstone National Park.

 

Quite accurate too

 

Does still exist and can you prove it with a link? ?

[+ WilliamM]

Does still exist and can you prove it with a link? ?

 

If you don't trust me well enough that I have to prove this, we are done. You know my brother writes books. And lives far from Philadelphia

[marylander1940]

If you don't trust me well enough that I have to prove this, we are done. You know my brother writes books. And lives far from Philadelphia

 

You can always create a real page about him. Unless he's really famous it will be rejected and removed because most new articles are from folks trying to became famous and using Wikipedia as an autobiography.

[+ WilliamM]

You can always create a real page about him. Unless he's really famous it will be rejected and removed because most new articles are from folks trying to became famous and using Wikipedia as an autobiography.

He is quite famous, so no.

[marylander1940]

The danger of Wikipedia is the ability for it to easily be hacked, which is awful.

 

Understood but they're fast at checking subjects and persons of interest and blocking their pages if needed, they also check IP addresses constantly and will limit a computer from editing certain subjects.

 

 

I've professionally added on to someone's biography, only to find it deleted a couple of days later.

 

It's frustrating when I read information about people or places that are flat out lies, granted it's rare. Our "gossip as fact" culture isn't helping.

 

Did you leave a reference to the changes you made?

 

I changed a page related to the Battleship Main from provoked explosion to unprovoked and is still on. I was taken aback but such "fake news".

[+ WilliamM]

You can always create a real page about him. Unless he's really famous it will be rejected and removed because most new articles are from folks trying to became famous and using Wikipedia as an autobiography.

He is famous on Amazon, perhaps that's all he wants. My brother is interested in selling books and meeting people who are interested in wolves and grizzly bears. And his good suggestions for films

[Guest]

Here!

Such a random introduction to a thread...I’m guessing there’s a context.

I already said I trust Wikipedia, and I know you and I disagree.

On major topics, it seems more like a moderated discussion forum than an academic resource.

On minor topics, it seems like the Wild West.

Anyone can get a Wikipedia page on themselves and fill it with what they want.

[Caliboy95]

I use Wikipedia if I want to know quickly about the general idea of something I’m not familiar with. Otherwise, I have never trusted the site when writing research papers for my classes because anyone with an account can edit wiki articles without providing real evidence of the claims they make in their changes to the article.

[marylander1940]

Such a random introduction to a thread...I’m guessing there’s a context.

 

On major topics, it seems more like a moderated discussion forum than an academic resource.

On minor topics, it seems like the Wild West.

Anyone can get a Wikipedia page on themselves and fill it with what they want.

 

Worong!

 

Try posting something without a reference!

[dutchal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

[mike carey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Meta AF!

[+ poolboy48220]

I remember the controversy a decade or so ago when Sarah Palin said something about "Paul Revere riding through the towns warning the British we were ready for them", and the Paul Revere page was flooded with edits from her supporters "correcting" the page. They finally closed it to edits until things died down.

[marylander1940]

I remember the controversy a decade or so ago when Sarah Palin said something about "Paul Revere riding through the towns warning the British we were ready for them", and the Paul Revere page was flooded with edits from her supporters "correcting" the page. They finally closed it to edits until things died down.

 

Now that you mention her.... Her page was embellished right before she was selected as McCain's running mate. Since then keeping an eye 24/7 on the Wikipedia pages of likely VP selections has been a tradition.

[Guest]

Worong!

 

Try posting something without a reference!

What does that even mean?

[+ WilliamM]

Worong!

 

Try posting something without a reference!

Newspapers like The Washington Post are more reliable for facts, so college students could trust the Post rather than Wikepida.

 

Post facts checker can over check, which may greatly annoy freelance journalists to

Edited April 15, 2021 by WilliamM

[Guest]

...

I've professionally added on to someone's biography, only to find it deleted a couple of days later.

...

It's frustrating when I read information about people or places that are flat out lies, granted it's rare..

I suspect it may have been deleted because it lacked references? Most statements in that website come from references. If you read false information, challenge the information and it will be removed if there aren't solid reference(s).