Wikipedia - should we use this as a point of reference.?

Question

I patched into Wikipedia and didn't realise that you can access it and add, alter, change the text.
I was looking up some information on the Romans and some wag had inserted a paragraph all about sunripe tomatoes
it was a funny but confusing until i knew what it was all about.

Answer 1

for the most part, it is a great resource , but as you've illustrated it can be tampered with, and if something on there seems a bit odd or out of place, then double check elsewhere for clarification.

At the end of the day the info is only as good as the contributors a bit like Yahoo Answers really!

Answer 2

Wikipedia is exactly like every other source of information on the web: you need to look at it and evaluate how reliable it is. Some articles are great - you can check the sources they've used and get a good idea of how much the information can be trusted. Some, as you've found, have been sabotaged, and some are just biased or made up. It's usually fairly obvious which are which.



What scares me is that people seem to automatically trust sites written by one person, when they've no idea how qualified that person is or what their agenda is, and distrust wikipedia on the grounds that more than one person may have contributed. This doesn't make sense, guys. You need to evaluate every page you're using as a source, whoever wrote it.



To the person who objected to people using wikipedia to provide answers: ok, some people may be misusing it, but others of us only quote it if we've gone there, evaluated the article, and decided it's reliable and useful.

Answer 3

fairly no longer a solid reference. Wikipedia is magical and seems to be very solid. besides the undeniable fact that, it is written via the community, so which you don't be responsive to although if it is somebody playing a comedian tale or a credited person interior that community. Wikipedia is mostly a solid place to get references from, basically scroll all the way down to the backside of the website, and click on the proper hyperlinks :D

Answer 4

This should be confined to personal use only. It constantly amazes me how many 'top contributors' here have copied and pasted from Wiki and received best answer. I always wonder why they're chosen - the asker themselves could have done that...Wiki is edited by the general public - many of whom don't have a clue. It's interesting what you say about tomatoes...there was a 'game' doing the rounds a few months ago (possibly more) whereby you would edit a celebrity's profile to say that they were dead, and see how long it took anyone to notice it. I think a British tabloid picked up on it at one stage. Anyway, I believe the record was Marti Pellow, who was 'dead' for something like 6 days before anybody noticed. Bit depressing, really.

Answer 5

Here is what Wikipedia says about itself:



Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which in principle anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in some very important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this in order to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation which has been recently added and not yet removed. (See Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia for more details).



Regards

Answer 6

Hello,



I would not cite it were I doing a Masters or PHD thesis but it is a starting point. Many of these questions need quick answers brief and to the point and when looking up information, it really speeds things up.



As indicated on the other posts, some of the information may not be reliable and out to lunch. Whenever in doubt you should cross reference such information with other sources then things should be ok.



Regards,



Michael Kelly

Answer 7

It is good as a starting point to find basic facts, but I wouldn't cite it in a paper or anything like that because anybody can alter it. I've seen some strange stuff posted in entries that obviously wasn't right. I think you can alert Wikipedia staff to bad info & they will lock certain entries so that the entries can't be altered.

Answer 8

I teach college History and Humanities classes and DO NOT accept Wikipedia as a source for a research project. I tell students to use it to get going with research, but never to cite it.

Answer 9

One of the best things about Wikipedia is that they give you other sources [at the bottom of each article, usually] that you can check as a back-up. True, there are a lot of Knowledge Cowboys riding their range, but Wiki is a good place to start rummaging. Don't take their answers as the final ones!

Answer 10

If you are using it for academic work you can use it as a starting point, but don't reference it. At university we were told never to reference it in essays, but use it to get a basic knowledge, then work it from there.

Answer 11

Personal use only!!!!!!!!!!

Teachers frown on Wikipedia because it is written by people with no real creditability and changed by others all the time.

Answer 12

its ok for personal use but id never cite it as a credible reference source

Answer 13

For personal use sure -





As a teacher, I tell my students to NEVER use WIKI for any school work!!....for the very reason that you have already discovered....







.

Answer 14

I don't believe then there are many deceits and incorrect things you don't trust him a lot



saludos de tultepec , mexico

Answer 15

ONLY when sources are documented and verified, yes. Otherwise, it is only considered a guide.

~