Is the content available on Wikipedia a reliable source for information?

  • It's a conspiracy about Wikipedia

    I have never seen an error on Wikipedia

  • Wikipedia information is reliable.

    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.

    Posted by: WillowsErv
  • Content of Wikipedia is often a reliable source for information, due to its credible citations.

    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.

    Posted by: 5h4rdWorth
  • Yes, since a lot of the information on Wikipedia is referenced, I do believe the site is a reliable information source.

    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.

    Posted by: StevyDemon
  • Yes, the content available on Wikipedia is reliable because there are moderators who ensure that all information on Wikipedia is accurate.

    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.

    Posted by: TigerDeII
  • Wikipedia is a reliable source for information as statistics have recently shown that most errors are remove quickly enough that most readers won't even see the error.

    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.

    Posted by: BrianDj
  • I believe you should; generally, the information is correct.

    A lot of references are provided for cross-proofing.

    Posted by: poohbear
  • Wikipedia is monitored for the accuracy of its information so that you can believe it.

    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.

    Posted by: FithBoosh
  • You can believe what you read on Wikipedia, but only if it references primary sources, preferably post-graduate level sources.

    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.

    Posted by: R053Neddy
  • Yes, Wikipedia is a great source of information.

    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.

    Posted by: R43Shep
  • Wikipedia isn't a valid source.

    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.

  • What you see is not always correct

    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.

  • I do not believe, because the articles which are published in Wikipedia is of the opinion of authors, not scientifically proven.

    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.

    Posted by: BurnaCute
  • No I don't believe you should always believe what you read on Wikipedia.

    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.

    Posted by: emililuyx2
  • Wikipedia is not a completely reliable source of information, and therefore should not be cited as one.

    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.

  • Credibility Defined by Educational Institutions

    Review any institution's method for determining website credibility and you will find that author authority is the primary thing missing from Wikipedia. Due to the methodology, Wikipedia has no authority to define it's credibility. People mention the references and citation, but the accuracy is not in question. An accurate statement can come from any source, however the credibility of that source as a method of citation is what is in question, not the accuracy of the statement.

  • Anyone can enter/change information

    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.....

  • I take the things I read with a grain of salt.

    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.

  • No its not!@

    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.

  • I don't think Wikipedia is a very reliable source, because people can essentially put whatever they want on there, and they might not know enough about the topic when they do it.

    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.

    Posted by: darcyska

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-02-27T16:07:31.777
It's ok for simple stuff. But in complex o subtle areas, especially where biased idiots aboud, it's not only bad, itbad while often appearing good. Also, they are hopeless at sorting out problems:

I've documented my experiences with WP admin at some lowish levels here
and here