Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, Wikipedia is and can be a credible resource

    Here, I'm not saying that it is totally credible but that, on the most part, can be quite reliable. Just because anyone can edit it doesn't mean it's automatically unreliable; people with expert knowledge are able to edit too. Also, most facts are referenced with sources at the bottom and if not it will say "(citation needed)" beside it. Just to reiterate, I'm not saying that Wikipedia is totally credible but that it shouldn't automatically be seen as a "bad" resource to reference.

  • Good resource starting point

    Teachers usually do not allow students to cite Wikipedia as a source (although I have had some), but almost all of my teachers have recommended it as a great launchpad for research and general overview. The sources that the information is gathered from is listed at the ends of the articles, and can provide an invaluable data base.

  • It is quite credible

    Wikipedia has recently input a credibility check that won't update the article unless a proven professor can ac tually confirmt hat the updat eis true. Wikipedia is much more credible then it use to be, and the only reason teachers doin't allow us to use it is because they see the creator of wikipedia as Satan, and anyone using it as the Anti-Christ.

  • Yes, Wikipedia is credible.

    Wikipedia has many credentials that make it a worthy source of information. The information is cited, some of it written by experts, and the site is constantly monitored for any changes and for credibility.

    Of course that is not to say Wikipedia is 100% sound. I myself have personally come across blatantly false information (it was a poorly written book summary that contained many personal bias against Bush 43). However it was quickly removed.

    Wikipedia is a great source for information when you need it or when you need a start. It is complete, mostly unbiased, and mostly true. Knowing Wikipedia is better than any other random website that pops up on a Google search.

    That being said, Wikipedia is NOT a good source to cite when doing serious research that needs to be presented in a formal manner. The precise reason is because anyone can edit it. It would be better to use primary sources, or sources from specifically a trust worthy organization, such as Harvard med schools or such.

    <3 Wikipedia.

  • No- it is too easily edited and the "citations" may not be credible themselves.

    Most entries on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and the sources they list in the footnotes also have no guarantee of reliability. I saw an entry that cited an "archaeological survey" that was conducted by a layperson (no credentials) with a crummy underwater camera, that was discredited by every expert in the field. Yet it was still listed in the sources.
    It is often biased, and while it may contain correct information there is no way for a person who is not already an expert in the topic to know whether the entry is credible or not. Of course, if the person is already an expert they have no need for Wikipedia in the first place.

  • It is, but thats beside the point.

    Wikipedia is an odd website. It is the only informational website that I use that may or may not be credible. If the question was "Is the information on Wikipedia credible?" I may have been able to support it, but in this case I cannot. Wikipedia is not seen as a credible resource by anything professional. You see, that is where it counts. The matter of Wikipedia having credible information and the site its self as being credible are completely different, so I answer in this manner.

  • I hate how much i dont maybe like possibly the best ever

    Yes, Wikipedia is credible.

    Wikipedia has many credentials that make it a worthy source of information. The information is cited, some of it written by experts, and the site is constantly monitored for any changes and for credibility.

    Of course that is not to say Wikipedia is 100% sound. I myself have personally come across blatantly false information (it was a poorly written book summary that contained many personal bias against Bush 43). However it was quickly removed.

    Wikipedia is a great source for information when you need it or when you need a start. It is complete, mostly unbiased, and mostly true. Knowing Wikipedia is better than any other random website that pops up on a Google search.

    That being said, Wikipedia is NOT a good source to cite when doing serious research that needs to be presented in a formal manner. The precise reason is because anyone can edit it. It would be better to use primary sources, or sources from specifically a trust worthy organization, such as Harvard med schools or such.

  • Easy to edit

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is instead a tertiary source like other encyclopedias. It usually uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or middlepage in this case). Always be careful of what you read, because it may not consistently be reliable.

  • Easy to edit

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is instead a tertiary source like other encyclopedias. It usually uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or middlepage in this case). Always be careful of what you read, because it may not consistently be reliable.

  • Easy to edit

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is instead a tertiary source like other encyclopedias. It usually uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or middlepage in this case). Always be careful of what you read, because it may not consistently be reliable.

  • I should say it is not credible depending on the issue. However that makes it generally unreliable.

    Wikipedia editors are often in disagreement. They use their own opinion to override those of others and at times those of each other. They require a "link or credible" proof. Who decides what is credible? Guess it is their editors. Therefore it is simply a projection of the agenda of their editors and hence it has no credibility. It is a net negative because it has opinion presented as fact.

  • No author cited

    No author or group of authors can be accountable for the articles in wikipedia, though there are cited references, because everyone can become a contributor and can plagiarise it or vandalize it so it is not a reliable source. Also, it is an open source content in a the interney

  • No author cited

    No author or group of authors can be accountable for the articles in wikipedia, though there are cited references, because everyone can become a contributor and can plagiarise it or vandalize it so it is not a reliable source. Also, it is an open source content in a the interney

  • Entries by anyone?

    Anyone can create or edit a topic on Wikipedia. You don't have to have credentials of any kind. In fact, you needn't know anything about a particular topic. While some of what you read on Wikipedia is actual and factual, some of it is theory and conjecture and opinion, which lacks works cited.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.