Wikipedia does not purport to be the final and definitive source for all information. It does provide internet users with a preliminary go-to site where they can get at least a general definition of what they are seeking. This is all it intends to be. It will usually, at a minimum, point the user in a direction that will more completely and accurately answer his/her questions.
Wikipedia frequently adds disclaimers to its entries, stating that it is unsure as it the accuracy of certain entries, and asking readers to add their comments if they have more accurate or up-to-date information. It seems to me that this is an excellent way to manage this website.
It is as reliable as its contributors make it. With admirable transparency and honesty, it tells us when its entries may NOT be reliable. This seems to indicate that it is more reliable and transparent than, say, news media or political utterances.
As to providing a social good: it provides the interesting aspect of bringing together those who believe they possess certain information with those seeking that information. I believe this may be a unique way to share information gleaned over lifetimes. I like it!
While Wikipedia should not be considered an official source of information, it can serve as a great tool for people doing research. Much of the information found at Wikipedia should be double-checked but it will definitely help someone begin an informational hunt. There are many social benefits as well, including the ability for users to add personal notes and such.
Props to the writer of this opinion for using the word resource, rather than the word "source", wikipedia is not a "source", and it has never claimed to be one, it is a resource.
Resource - A resource is a source or supply from which benefit is produced (Source: wikipedia)
Wikipedia is like a hub, a hub for scholars, students, hobbyists, teachers, enthusiasts, to come together and share the best resources they can find, they take all those resources and the useful text from them, and try to summarize it, into a concise, and efficient article, but always show citations to the actual source where they receive their information from. If you see a quote or something of the similar on Wikipedia, that you are going to use for a research paper/report, etc. you don't cite Wikipedia, although it would be nice, to somehow make note that you used Wikipedia almost as a search engine/hub to find good sources, as well as quick summaries of what those sources have to say about a subject, you cite the people that wikipedia cites. And if those cited sources, cite their sources, you cite those. In fact, as I continue writing, I begin to realize more and more, how okay it is to use wikipedia as a source, because essentially all "sources" have citations, unless they're plagiarizing, irresponsible, or where then when something happened. The argument that "anybody can edit it" is silly, because anybody can use basic SEO skills, to make some BS up, post it online, and have it appear in results for when a topic is being researched.
the content that is not vandalized is on par with encyclopedia Britannica. If you utilize the sources provided within Wikipedia's references section it can be a helpful resource, and is usually quite accurate. Studies that ate it's accuracy rate it quite high +95% in reliability. Vandalism is rare and usually obvious. More controversial pages are watched diligently. Some pages re entirely un-edittable.
as long as you are using it for quick information and not a college paper. Yes, it is true that anyone can edit it, but it is also true that any errors are fixed within minutes. It is also a great source for links to other, possibly more reliable, sites.
Studies find it as accurate as most encyclopedias. "The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
The argument that it is unreliable because it can be edited by anyone is invalid, wikipedia is very good at editing out useless information within minutes of it being posted, and making sure that only valid info is left on their site. Sure it does miss a couple of things, but thats comparable to dismissing a textbook as useless because of a few typos.
99% of the time Wikipedia is useful when trying to get basic information or general knowledge of just about any topic someone could want to research. People make a stink about people potentially editing these links but they fail to realize that wikipedia regularly corrects these edits if they are false and also even locks down important pages to prevent editing being done to them.
Articles can be proof-read, but at the same time, they can be influenced by those with an agenda or falsehoods. The majority of information is accurate enough, and does prove to be beneficial for others. It is beneficial to an extent that one could actually call Wikipedia an amazing and wonderful thing for people to use.
I like to use Wikipedia for almost any question that comes up. It covers almost every subject you can think of and the information is usually reliable. Where there are inaccuracies, the community seems to clean them up on factual items.
Wikipedia is littered with some true facts you cannot rely on it for information. It is more of a fun site, a site where you can start a top on all of your favorite topics. here are no fact checkers that verify your information. There is no educational institution that will accept Wikipedia as a credible source. Wikipedia is a great research start but you need to fact check your own information to insure it's correctness.
No wonder why teachers and schools don't trust Wikipedia......... You cant know for the truth if the info on the site is correct. You do not want to be putting in fake information into a important report if you don't know if that info is legit. So your telling me you will trust a website that was technically made by people on the web. If I wanted to right now I could go put that the oldest person in the world is 300 years old and that would get posted on the website as true fact. For all we know Wikipedia could be a website that teenagers post stupid answers to questions people will take for the actual, correct answer.
I believe that Wikipedia is not a reliable or socially beneficial resource because any person using the computer can go into the system and change the words to their liking which causes false information to be put into the system. This misleads many users who need the right information from getting the real information, and instead, some bogus information that someone decided to put up because they were bored sitting at home. This is the case sometimes, and so Wikipedia should not continue this feature, and instead hire workers to write the real information.
My friend edited a page on Leopard Frogs and said that they come out at night to eat little children. They're diet consists only of little boys whom they devour whole. Weeks later, still on the page. Another person I researched (a famous black man in the time of slavery, forget the name) had a Wikipedia page saying that he was : "the smelliest black man alive who forced white people to never take a shower." Weeks later, still on there. FACEPALM.
Wikipedia can be a reliable source, but it is hard to distinguish which information is true and which information is false. This sight will let you add your own information and update information on any subject without proof the information is true. I think you can look for information on Wikipdia, but I wouldn't use this as my only source due to the uncertainty of the information. It would always be a good idea to check the information found on Wikepedia with other reliable sources.
It may be a reliable source of information but it's hard to trust it because it has a very poor reputation. I can't think of anyone that I know who thinks that Wikipedia is trustworthy. All three of my kids tell me that you can't trust Wikipedia. I occasionally get a search result from Wikipedia and that information seems to be okay. I read that they have people who do nothing but verify the validity of information on the site but I put that I can't trust them because everything I hear about them is bad. I'm not entirely sure that is fair but they say perception is reality.
Wikipedia is not a reliable resource as it is written by individuals who are able to express there own opinions and are not checked for accuracy prior to publication. That being said it can provide useful information provided the reader is well aware of it's limitations as a reliable and objective resource.
Half of Wikipedia is false information and is updated so slowly updated. The don't check it enough and I have found lots of false information. I have tried to use it many times but it is so hard to find out what is true and what is not. I have gotten multiple false facts and they should update it more often
On Wikipedia, you can post anything you want. It could be valid information or false information. Most of it is false information. Students can use information from Wikipedia in a project. They might not get a good grade because of Wikipedia's false information. Don't use Wikipedia for a project, or as a formal source of information.
Anyone can insert huge amounts of text into an article, destroying readability and all sense of proportion. Attempts to redress this are often futile and occasionally result in warnings, due to the inherent bias in the Wikipedia community that bigger is somehow better. So I dont think people should use it.