How often do you visit Wikipedia?

[-Skykanden-]

I used to. But the bad thing is that so many things are wrong.

[a-4-year-old]

Second, its my opinion.  Wikipedia could be crawling with false research.  You never know.

Actually I do, at any given time the vast majority of the information on the site is accurate. And the important facts on the site are cited, so if you had enough sense you could check the references.

[bja888]

My argument is simple.
Go to http://pepsi.com and tell me the year it was founded.
Now go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi and tell me.

Accurate or not, it is stall a very large source of information all in one place. It is also a much better website from a web dev's perspective.

[Arbiter]

My argument is simple.
Go to http://pepsi.com and tell me the year it was founded.
Now go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi and tell me.

Accurate or not, it is stall a very large source of information all in one place. It is also a much better website from a web dev's perspective.

Then change it to the correct one. That's the point of being able to edit the page anyway.

[a-4-year-old]

My argument is simple.
Go to http://pepsi.com and tell me the year it was founded.
Now go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi and tell me.

Accurate or not, it is stall a very large source of information all in one place. It is also a much better website from a web dev's perspective.

Then change it to the correct one. That's the point of being able to edit the page anyway.

... really?

[woo]

I used to. But the bad thing is that so many things are wrong.

In fact, wikipedia is about as accurate as an avarage encyclopedia. You must have an incredible source of information if it's superior to wikipedia.

I use it daily.

[pavliko]

mleh....wikipedia is the best place to find like any information....
dont know why some people are againts it

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I used to. But the bad thing is that so many things are wrong.

Name a few.

Go to http://pepsi.com and tell me the year it was founded.

Warning: Pepsi's site is a massive fail.  Apparently playing music and looking pretty is more important than being accessible.

[STM1993]

mleh....wikipedia is the best place to find like any information....
dont know why some people are againts it

The reason why some people are against Wikipedia is because:

Anyone can edit the articles. In other words, anyone can just go there, write their own stuff, vandalize the article, or modify what others have typed. Because of this, some people say that Wikipedia is unreliable, since the idea of the article does not belong to a small group of elites but rather every average person in the world.

As a saying goes (I can't remember the exact phrasing), "A small group of elites is not as great as a large group of ordinary minds."

Funny, Wikipedia was part of my English exam passage and I got a lot of info about Wikipedia from it lol.

Anyway,

Why would people also regard Wikipedia as good? This is because Wikipedia has basically almost every bit of information in multiple languages. An article put up in wikipedia may be IMPROVED by other users who may be better at the same article. At the same time, instead of a single opinion, users who read the article can have more than one view point, as opposed to articles written by a single elite, which tend to be very one-sided. As time goes by, the article will improve. Besides, so many people go to Wikipedia, and there are of course some very serious users who would do lots of proper stuff and policing on Wikipedia. On the average, a damaged article can be restored within 1 minute.

[M.rSnow]

Wikipedia dosnt go deep enough for me. So i use it for overview.

Anyone can edit the articles. In other words, anyone can just go there, write their own stuff, vandalize the article, or modify what others have typed. Because of this, some people say that Wikipedia is unreliable, since the idea of the article does not belong to a small group of elites but rather every average person in the world.

That's why you should check the diffrent version's every edit is saved. So if you find anything that you dont think is valid you check the history.

[Vilho]

I visit it daily. Roaming around random articles, reading crap-important articles of anything less or more important.

[STM1993]

That's why you should check the diffrent version's every edit is saved. So if you find anything that you dont think is valid you check the history.

Yep.

And ya, sometimes I hate Wikipedia. Articles like in DMC. Originally, there were separate pages for separate characters, giving FULL detail. Vergil was there.

Now what happened? Now all the information is brought to one single page (list of characters), and the amount of info about Vergil is reduced by a lot. No pictures. Sparda's page is also gone. Only Dante has his own individual page.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Because of this, some people say that Wikipedia is unreliable, since the idea of the article does not belong to a small group of elites but rather every average person in the world.

As a saying goes (I can't remember the exact phrasing), "A small group of elites is not as great as a large group of ordinary minds."

So...great doesn't mean good in this context?

[LtKillroy]

I use it when I am researching something of no particular importance that I need to get done and don't really care about. And the arguement that anyone can change it is generally not a great one, because anyone can change false information into true. I usually use the links at the bottom of the site more than the actual thing though. (I have never found any information on wiki that conflicted with any other site, book, etc.)

[Will]

Because of this, some people say that Wikipedia is unreliable, since the idea of the article does not belong to a small group of elites but rather every average person in the world.

As a saying goes (I can't remember the exact phrasing), "A small group of elites is not as great as a large group of ordinary minds."

So...great doesn't mean good in this context?

What did you not comprehend? I don't see whats wrong with that saying. Maybe you missunderstood.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Because of this, some people say that Wikipedia is unreliable, since the idea of the article does not belong to a small group of elites but rather every average person in the world.

As a saying goes (I can't remember the exact phrasing), "A small group of elites is not as great as a large group of ordinary minds."

So...great doesn't mean good in this context?

What did you not comprehend? I don't see whats wrong with that saying. Maybe you missunderstood.

Maybe I did, but it seems like he's saying first that Wikipedia is unreliable because it's made by a large group of ordinary people, then turns right around and says that's better than if it were created by a small group of elites (which I assume refers to the experts in their respective fields).  How can unreliable be better than reliable?

[The Philanthropist]

I use it all the time, and if It's for a school project I just use the references instead of the actual wiki page. If it doesn't matter, then I don't care enough to ensure accuracy.

[Graham]

I'm with ds dude on this one actually.

In my opinion the best information is pulled from the sources (i.e. actual journal articles and the like) cited on Wiki, not Wiki itself.  I'd get my ass handed to me, to put it lightly, for ever referencing Wiki.  It may be easier to understand, but so are CliffsNotes.

Geo you are on college/professional level, not high school. In high school you barely have to work at all for a decent report. Reword a bunch of facts from different sources and you got a decent report.

Perfect attitude for scraping by with a GED.  Congrats.

I agree that its lazy but I am sure most high school kids went the lazy route on at least one paper.

[pavliko]

hmmm....STM1993 still there are stupid people who just says wiki sucks :/

[ds dude]

Second, its my opinion.  Wikipedia could be crawling with false research.  You never know.

Actually I do, at any given time the vast majority of the information on the site is accurate. And the important facts on the site are cited, so if you had enough sense you could check the references.

I have actually. And I've notice some mistakes before, but since wikipedia is actually nice, they check articles and make sure that words relate to it.

So we both win.