Makes you wanna go, "Hmmmmmm."

[bullseye]

I think everyone here has made valid points. Keep in mind, always, that if you want to have any reasonable assurance of accuracy, you must use more than one reputable source. Also, Wikipedia and other compilations, whether online or in print, are considered secondary sources. Yt's suggestion to use the references for the article is right on target, as that may lead you to primary source material. Of course, it all depends upon whether you are looking for a jog to your memory (for which I often use Wikipedia) or authoritative information.

 

[GB]

Very well said bullseye.

 

[buckytom]

You look up subjects you know a lot about but not for the stuff you know, rather, for the new stuff you don't know yet. That's when you and others become vulnerable to misinformation.

good point, but it's still not always the case. often times, i'm just looking up the spelling or proper use of some verbage (yes, they're things i may not know, but now we're picking nits and getting away from your arguement), and while i'm there i'll browse the entry to jog my memory on the subject.

and what bullseye said, +1.

 

[GotGarlic]

Just FYI, when DH was teaching experimental design in high school, he would not allow the students to use Wikipedia as a source, nor would my university English professor when I took classes a couple of years ago. While the regular contributors are no doubt doing their best, AFAIK they are not necessarily experts in their fields; some are, probably, but some are just enthusiastic amateurs. And if incorrect information is added, it might be a while before someone notices and fixes it; in the meantime, anyone who sees it (and thinks Wikipedia is as reliable as an encyclopedia) will believe what they read. I know people who mistakenly believe that only experts are allowed to post there. The truth is, anyone can add or edit articles there.

 

[buckytom]

which, in certain types of realities, makes it a useful resource.

how vague do we need to be to understand reality, i ask you.

can any of the naysayers suggest a better, more informative, and equally current site for a reference? i'm not challenging anyone; would be grateful.

 

[Rom]

Don't rely it on for sure, in my office a couple of guys wanted to see if they could edit an entry. So they wrote stuff, you would obviously not think correct, they were "busted" so to speak and weren't able to edit any posts. I'm not sure if thats permanent or not.

The things they changed were quickly rectified, and i mean like instantly.

 

[GotGarlic]

can any of the naysayers suggest a better, more informative, and equally current site for a reference? i'm not challenging anyone; would be grateful.

I don't consider myself a naysayer - just passing on some info

But here's a list of other encyclopedias or info compilations: Encyclopedias: Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia & more at LibrarySpot.com

 

[buckytom]

thank you gotgarlic, i'll give them a look see.

 

[Chausiubao]

One thing wikipedia is used for frequently in my university is as a chemistry or biology reference tool. If we wanted to look up the physical properties of a specific chemical, its uses, its history, or that type of thing, theres a good chance, that it will be on the site, with at least some basic physical properties.

If there were a better place for that type of thing I'd love to hear it, but for now wikipedia is pretty reliable as a scientific reference