I have never seen an error on Wikipedia
The information found on Wikipedia is reliable and up to date. The Wikipedia is updating all the time and they are up to the minute on what is on there. The site is user based and users have the ability to make changes to unreliable information that is posted on there.
Using Wikipedia is often a good source for obtaining reliable information, assuming that you ensure that proper citations have been given to the information. Since Wikipedia is publicly edited, it sometimes can lead to misinformation. However, most times you are able to find citations to credible sources within the Wikipedia article. Therefore, it is my opinion that Wikipedia is often a reliable source to find information.
I use Wikipedia a lot for research and personal reasons. I have found that the majority of information on Wikipedia is quite accurate. There have been a few instances where I have seen information that was different from other sources, but people do make mistakes. If any information is placed on Wikipedia that has not been verified they let you know that no sources have been cited. That, in itself, shows that Wikipedia is a reliable site.
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. Even though there are thousands of articles available, each and every article is moderated to ensure that there is a certain amount of accuracy in the article. So it's a great reliable source of information.
As of 2010, professionals from all fields have stated that Wikipedia is a great starting point for researching a specific topic. It is subject, however, to errors the same as any other general reference compilation. Statistics have shown, though, that most postings containing errors are removed so quickly that most people will not even see them. Most professionals have remarked on the amazing ability of Wikipedia to be "governed" by the public and to still be as accurate as it is. As with any research, one should always use multiple points of reference, not just one.
A lot of references are provided for cross-proofing.
It's is many peoples jobs to patrol Wikipedia and ensure that all the information posted is relative and accurate. Because many hundred people use the site and update the information, it is unlikely that they would leave incorrect information there. Also, no one information site should ever be used as your sole source of information.
I would not trust Wikipedia on whether or not a certain celebrity is dead/married/gay, but I'm more likely to trust it on literature interpretations, artistic concepts, tourism info, or basic historical facts. But even then, I would only whole-heartedly recommend the article as a credible source if it references primary sources, preferably those of post-graduate level if concerning academic projects.
Wikipedia is a useful tool for research. Yes, the information is provided by users, but since many people use the material, it is often confirmed by many people. One should always take it with a grain of salt and should use other sources to confirm the information. Wikipedia is like anything; it should be used wisely. I have used it for a number of years and have been able to confirm the data independently.
Wikipedia is built on the information that other users find online, in books, TV, or common knowledge. Sure there are always errors but they are always cleaned up eventually by the staff and other users. And since its just built on other sources. If Wikipedia is incorrect then that means other sources are incorrect.
Yeah, anyone can edit the information on any page but the changes are checked by moderators and the information on the page is reverted back if the changes are found to be untrue or if there is no evidence supporting the changes. The changes are usually checked within a couple hours to a couple days.
The articles are very well written, funded by enough references and notes. It may not be 100% accurate or 100% reliable because everyone CAN edit it, but especially the English Wikipedia site is quite reliable, as shown by various independent sources. Wikipedia can be used as a reliable and accurate source for all kinds of topics.
It is one of the most widely used website in the world.
More and more scholars are citing Wiki in their work.
Also, there is a growing trend of citing Wiki for academic paper as well.
Many studies conducted to determine how Wikipedia is as a source have proved positively,
and "approved" Wiki to be used as a credible source.
I think the information on Wikipedia is some of the best around. The amount of citation available is more than most reference sites and the citations often lead you to even better information. People fact check and double check the info on here all the time. Poeple need to get with the 21st century.
Perhaps, in the beginning, it wasn't nearly as reliable. But, today, Wikipedia is generally a good source of reliable information on the Internet. As a user-generated, evolving form of information, Wikipedia becomes more and more accurate every day, and the prejudice against it for providing misleading information becomes less valid.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where entries are written by the users of the site. Even though people can be mistaken in their facts, whether on purpose or accident, Wikipedia has set up measures to ensure the most accurate information. Users are allowed to question articles and questionable articles have alerts posted at the top of the page. Therefore, although Wikipedia articles may not all be completely true, for the most part, the information is accurate.
Wikipedia is not perfect, since corporate propaganda and misinformation is deliberately put into pages at times. However, the review system in place usually means that these isolated incidents are caught and corrected. With older encyclopedias, information could quickly become out of date, and many relevant topics might never even be covered. With Wikipedia, anyone can submit an article, which means that in niche or obscure topics, an expert on that subject matter can actually provide their insight and knowledge. The ability for it to grow and stay current is essential in the modern communication age.
Most people that use Wikipedia all the time will - about 95% - tell you that it is 99% accurate. When in fact anyone can change it, and it takes a long time for them to catch that mistake. I believe it's a good starting place for opinions to build and to find your question that you can put into a search engine to find real valid information.
Anyone can submit information. You can write anything you want about anyone or anything and it can be utter jibberish. I think some where on the site there is a disclaimer about authenticity. Everything should be checked from another source of reference.
Though Wikipedia is considered the best to search for articles of every kind, the authenticity of the subject is not 100% correct, because the views of different authors are different in some way or other. The findings of their survey regarding many subjects may be different unless it is scientifically proven. A unanimous view is almost impossible. Therefore, we have to rely on their views, which are not completely accurate in most cases.
Wikipedia can be a great source of information, but it should never be someone's only source of information for important topics. While it is usually right about most things, the truth is that anyone has the ability to edit it and not all of the facts that are added may be correct.
You can use Wikipedia for looking up general information, but you should not use it for research. It can be edited by anyone at any time, very easily.
I don't think Wikipedia is a completely reliable source of information about any subject. I like to use it, though, so that I can go to the bottom of the page and get some extra resources. But I would never use it in school as a reference on a college paper because it can be edited by anyone at any time. No proof is needed for the validity of the information. Yes, I know there are moderators, but they can't check all of the information all of the time. It's useful in some ways, but.....
Some articles are extremely biased, therefore making it hard for me to believe the content. Some are detailed in one language, yet scanty in another. I sometimes encounter articles that are terribly written (incorrect grammar, awful style, rambling articles that could be shorten by at least 50%). Then I wonder if a human editor even bothered to look at them.
Unknown writers around the world write and edit the articles. many articles are unfinished. Only some are fully cited and finished. There are many studies done showing that many Wikipedia entries contain errors. There is no way to trace who wrote about who. Plus the entries are edited on daily basis that leaves no room for credible information.
People can edit Wikipedia articles and basically write whatever they want. A lot of the articles don't list sources of information, so there is no way to check its accuracy. Whoever posted the article or edited it might not have had their facts straight.
No, the content available on Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information because for one, different information can be submitted and entered by just about anyone without the proof or verification that this information is actually true. This leads to differing points of views and is very subjective in my opinion.
This means that any random hobo with a computer can change stuff from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has moderators, but all they do is make sure the person doesn't type joke material on Wiki. They are mostly the "football dads" and "soccer moms" that could be easily fooled by a few big words. It's sad that so many times, search results from google have Wiki listed 1st.