How often do you visit Wikipedia?

[The Geologist]

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.

Actually, while I was in high school using online sources was heavily discouraged as well.  And yes...how I long to return to those days. 

[a-4-year-old]

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.

Actually, while I was in high school using online sources was heavily discouraged as well.  And yes...how I long to return to those days. 

That doesn't make sense, you didn't have internet back in the 70's

[The Geologist]

Har-de-har har.

[STM1993]

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 fact that it has many opinions. A large group of people have a large variety of knowledge and opinions, as compared to elites who would normally have a few fixed views. You can therefore see things in a wider view scope. The only reason why the large group is not reliable is because there are a mix of people who know the topic well and those who don't, and may not be agreement with some stuff and overtime the article will keep changing.

Take this for example about why the large group is better:

You are doing a research on whether Country X is run well or not. If you ask the elites, they just give one opinion on the situation and expect everyone else to follow. If you ask the population, there are people who give rubbish, there are people who give helpful comments, but if you sum them all up together, you can really tell whether Country X is really well-run or not, because you have a wider scope on how Country X is run and how have the people met their needs.

As for why its unreliable, there are multiple views, some are biased, some are neutral. They may not coincide, and they will keep changing over time. So the information can be quite unreliable, since the foundation is quite shaky, unlike having an elite's view who makes one point and everyone would then follow.

[mar77a]

You sound like an old man, Geo.

[O.R.I.O.N.]

Congratulations, you just killed it.

Wikipedia...meh, most of my teachers hate it, so I don't really have any reason to use it as a research source as of late.

[Twistkill]

Does no one take heed of the large flags that are on Wikipedia articles that may not be accurate or reliable?

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Use at your own risk." and/or "This article needs additional citations for clarification."

There are many more of those as well.

Furthermore,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria (Yes, I realize the irony of posting this. Har de har.)

What I hate the most, though, is when people simply dismiss everything an article says or everything someone says without even looking at it. "Because it's on Wikipedia, it must be poorly edited, blatantly biased, and completely false information! I'm not even looking at what you're saying because you used such a horrible source of information."

Discrediting someone's sources can be a valid form of argumentation, but often it's taken to the extreme example I've presented above.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

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?

You are doing a research on whether Country X is run well or not. If you ask the elites, they just give one opinion on the situation and expect everyone else to follow. If you ask the population, there are people who give rubbish, there are people who give helpful comments, but if you sum them all up together, you can really tell whether Country X is really well-run or not, because you have a wider scope on how Country X is run and how have the people met their needs.

Except an encyclopedia should be based on facts, not opinions.  It should give you the GDP, the population, the national debt, the approval ratings, the average income, etc., and let you decide whether a country is run well or not.  The same holds true for any subject, so it's not like you used a bad example.  For any given subject, facts are better than opinions; consequently, for any given subject, asking a group of experts is better than asking a group of laymen.

Now, it may seem like I completely went against my previous argument, that Wikipedia is good because it's openly editable.  But the truth is, the people whose changes make it to the final product ARE the experts.  It's like running for President.  Technically anyone can do it (with a few qualifications, like being born in American and being older than 35), but only the people who actually know what they're doing have any chance.  Likewise, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but only the experts really have a say on what goes on a page.  Luckily, this also counteracts the effects of the laymen, because inaccuracies are fixed immediately.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that it takes the best knowledge from a broad user base and gets rid of the rest.  That's why open editing is a good thing.

[jrgp]

Has anyone noticed wikipedia's act to try and make many of it's articles reliable sources of correct information? Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles

[FliesLikeABrick]

I use it several times/day. While Wikipedia isn't good for assignments (e.g. you should never cite wikipedia...), it is an awesome place to start learning about a particular topic and the citations/additional articles/external links provide credible sources to continue the research with.

[Hundkeex]

What's Wikipedia?

[jrgp]

What's Wikipedia?

Are you serious? Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia written in many languages where it's users write and maintain the articles.

[Flamingo]

He's just trying to be funny jrgp, don't mind him.

[Graham]

Flamingo is just trying to leave people uneducated, don't mind him.

[Hundkeex]

What's Wikipedia?

Are you serious? Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia written in many languages where it's users write and maintain the articles.

I was ironic..as "What's wikipedia = I dont use wikipedia"

[woo]

�  is just trying to make the most useless post on this thread, but I win.

[GunPowder]

You can always count on Wikipedia in the more scientific articles, who in the world would vandalize an article about differential equations, or polynomials for example, can't say physics cause I'm pretty sure there're plenty of physics nazi haters out there.

[Mangled*]

I find it funny that people dismiss Wikipedia as farce because it's a collaborative work. Who do you think writes normal encyclopedias? Robots?

You'd be surprised to find that Wikipedias maintenance standards are pretty good. I've tested this by slipping a few odd words or contradictions into articles.. they honestly don't last long until someone fixes it. A few days? A week at best.

[Kerrazyeye]

I visit wikipedia every time someone links to an article....Then several hours later I find myself looking at coconut crabs and arthropods and shit... Wikipedia is a drug.

[darksonic45]

Firefox has this useful thing where you type something in the address bar and it sends you straight there. Whenever there is ANYTHING (seriously, ANYTHING) that I need I type in "Wiki (whatever)" and it gives me good information and I type it over 10x a day. Wiki cites the sources at the bottom if you want to double check. At school I jokingly call it my bible since whatever I need I go straight to it.