How reliable do you consider Wikipedia to be at this point?

[Guestx]

Title says it all.

It's that age-old debate about Wikipedia and how trustworthy its content is. I use Wikipedia quite a bit, so it's something I think about.

I've read about various studies that have been done, some of which lead to the conclusion that Wikipedia is just as accurate as a traditional encyclopedia (usually compared to Britannica, which operates their own online outlet at britannica.com) while others conclude that Wikipedia still suffers from multiple issues that impact that accuracy or completeness of their articles that are absent from traditional reference sources.

When you're reading something on Wikipedia, do you tend to assume the information is accurate? Or do you still carry a high level of skepticism with you while browsing through the site?

 

[Ares Black]

Depends on what kind of info you are looking for.

Generally, very reliable.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

Its pretty accurate for what I use it for

MMA/Movies/Sports

 

[Rimbaud82]

Varies a lot in my experience. It's a bit of a cliche at this point that wikipedia is unreliable, but for some topics it's actually very good...but on the same token, some topics aren't great.

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

It depends. some of their stuff is very bias.

 

[mb23100]

Ive never had a problem with it. Unless it was a blatant joke.

 

[BisexualMMA]

More reliable than Google. As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't curate its articles according to an SJW filter.

 

[21 Savage]

>get school project
>go wiki copy paste some shit
>give wikipedias citation instead of wikipedia as ur source
>???
>success

 

[moreorless87]

Generally I do but keep more of an eye out on topics were politics is likely to be an issue.

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

not reliable eno8uhg to use for grad school, but right up to taht point re5gliable enough

 

[Organic Damage]

At least most of the stuff that's suspect on wikipedia has an editorial note at the top of the node.

I think it's a pretty reliable source on the whole, especially as who edits what can be tracked.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

pretty reliable
A) there's an edit history, and they tend to catch things fast (like the fake MMA one's where a guy get's KO'd and now he's dead, or some fighter is married to a guy)
B) the links/references cited are all on the bottom so you can clearly follow through if you think the article isn't getting the source material right

 

[blaseblah]

When in doubt, check the source. Every fact stated is supposed to have a source.

 

[Guestx]

pretty reliable
A) there's an edit history, and they tend to catch things fast (like the fake MMA one's where a guy get's KO'd and now he's dead, or some fighter is married to a guy)
B) the links/references cited are all on the bottom so you can clearly follow through if you think the article isn't getting the source material right

When in doubt, check the source. Every fact stated is supposed to have a source.

I actually have checked the sources on some occasions and have been surprised by how often either a) it's a dead link or b) the source is garbage, like it just ends up being some random non-authoritative website which itself does not source its information.

 

[MikeMcMann]

A wiki is basically a building collection of cumulative knowledge that self corrects over time to the correct outcome.

So if an entry is newer it may not have had the time to self correct and may contain inaccuracies. But more mature entries hold up to the quality level of the top encyclopedias.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I actually have checked the sources on some occasions and have been surprised by how often either a) it's a dead link or b) the source is garbage, like it just ends up being some random non-authoritative website which itself does not source its information.

well of course
I shoulda prefaced it by saying I generally only check scholarly journal articles, as that's all one can cite in at grad school and likely even undergrad now

The newspaper cites tend to be legit, even if the link isn't tho

 

[Midnighter]

I only believe something if I read it from wiki.

 

[Drain Bamage]

I think it's pretty reliable.

You see shit like articles getting fucked with, it's pretty obvious.

 

[Guestx]

Varies a lot in my experience. It's a bit of a cliche at this point that wikipedia is unreliable, but for some topics it's actually very good...but on the same token, some topics aren't great.

I think that if anything the cliche has flipped to the other side, where a lot of people now think that Wikipedia's reliability problems have all cleared up and it's as trustworthy as a traditional reference source.

As you say, it seems to vary a lot. A lot of articles seem to be very accurate, but others are riddled with problems. Blatantly false claims, a biased tone, poor or no sourcing, obvious propaganda or advertising, and shitty writing are all problems at times.

And that doesn't even factor in "errors of omission" where articles are just unbalanced or incomplete.

Lately I've been using britannica.com a lot. The problem with Britannica though is that often times there just isn't an article for whatever it is that I am researching or the article they do have is only like a quarter of the size of the Wikipedia article and pretty useless.

 

[Guestx]

well of course
I shoulda prefaced it by saying I generally only check scholarly journal articles, as that's all one can cite in at grad school and likely even undergrad now

The newspaper cites tend to be legit, even if the link isn't tho

Why are only scholarly journal articles accepted in grad school? It seems like they would accept any source that was written by a reputable author. If a credentialed historian writes a book for a popular audience about Abraham Lincoln, for instance, shouldn't that be authoritative enough?