Although Wikipedia has made strides in increasing the reliability of information and actively encouraged source citing, it remains unreliable for finding information. There is no consistent mechanism to ensure the quality of information sources cited on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are so many different editors without verification of their qualifications that the process fails to ensure quality and competency in the editorial process.
I had an English teacher in high school who drilled into my head that Wikipedia is not a credible source. She is right. To write a research paper, you need sources that are validated and academic. I do believe that using Wikipedia to look up something you were curious about is completely fine. Generally, it has good information. However, if you are preparing a speech, presentation, or paper, it is far better to use sources with more accreditation.
Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia. Any time you open information control to the public, you are bound to increase the rate of error. Wikipedia has its uses; it should be used for understanding the basics of a topic and finding out general information on it. Most Wiki-articles have references that go to more scholarly articles; those articles with good credentials are the best place for a person to get the information they're seeking.
Wikipedia provides many useful facts but information should always be checked for validity. It is useful for us to learn not to just accept what we are told.
Currently Wikipedia allows its articles to be freely edited by any individual who so wishes. This allows for a great amount of collaboration between users but also allows for inaccuracies and blatant lies. The fact that Wikipedia has a high rate of errors, however, does not mean that the service is useless. It is helpful to get a general idea on a topic to assist users in finding their own answers. When used correctly Wikipedia can be a wonderful research tool.
No, Wikipedia does not have a rate of error that is too high for it to be of value in finding information or knowledge, because Wikipedia is useful for what it is. Wikipedia is valuable for general information on basic topics, but it should not be relied upon for very technical research.
Its a valuable source of online data, and I have used it in the past with many other sources, cross referencing to check the data. I know being an open source, it is subject to being a victim of some immature people who enjoy playing pranks. It has shown there is a policing system that monitors the site. The real problem is lazy people who don't cross reference their information from different sources.
I do not believe that Wikipedia has a rate of error that is too high for it to be of value in finding information or knowledge. Yes, there are some errors on the site. This does not mean that the whole site isn't correct. There are people who are able to check for misinformation. I think, because of all the information it gives out, we can handle the small amount of misinformation that is out there.
While the rate of error is high on Wikipedia, it has become a valuable starting place when researching a topic. Most articles have references, and these references can be a great jumping off point to delving deeper into a subject. I also believe they have been improving on their error rates in recent years, which helps lend them credibility.
Since our understanding of many things is still changing, I do not feel that Wikipedia should be totally undermined by the few user-generated errors that exist in the database. Overall, the site is still a good resource for general information.
I would say that 90% of the people who use it are not even aware of the errors associated with Wikipedia. The only true way to know would be to do the research and match it against a known fact. But, then again, that defeats the purpose of using Wikipedia in the first place. That's where people go when they want to find information fast, without having to do time-consuming research. So, in my opinion, who really knows the error rate, without doing further research, and who is going to take the time to do it?
Wikipedia has a very low error rate, but if the information is critical, you should validate it with additional sources regardless. Even professional references have occasional errors.
Information found on Wikipedia is usually nearly as accurate as or more accurate than anything else you'll find online. I don't consider it an authoritative source, but it's a good place to conduct quick research. I wouldn't want my doctor consulting it for tips on brain surgery, but I'd have no problem using the info on Wikipedia to settle a bar bet.
Wikipedia is a valuable tool for gaining knowledge. In my experience with it, it has been very helpful. When I was in college, I often turned to it to gain a better understanding of a subject if my textbook left me confused. There was never a time when I found information on Wikipedia that contradicted the information in my textbook. I still use it to increase knowledge on subject of personal interest.
As much as each subject is observed by a lot of members & veiwers it is the most accurate thing considering the vote of all human beings is scarsly fully wrong. In the other hand most of comments have references.