Makes you wanna go, "Hmmmmmm."

[Andy M.]

Can you rely on Wikipedia entries after reading this article?

 

[Katie H]

I don't really rely on Wiki. Hope others take the info to heart...if it is as reliable as Wiki.

 

[amber]

As Katie mentioned, and I agree, I dont rely on any definitions from that site.

 

[bullseye]

I only believe Wikipedia when it agrees with me!

Seriously, it's not like it's the Britannica, where every entry is checked and then checked again. OTOH, it (Wikipedia) does have good information for those subjects that are not politically or morally charged. It's always good to remember the old adage, "consider the source".

 

[Andy M.]

You have no way of knowing which entries have been doctored. Any boob with a warped sense of humor could modify any entry.

 

[keltin]

Wikipedia should be taken with a gain of salt and double checked…but still, it is often a great source of info because it is cared for, in the most part, by people passionate about the data they provide. And it is peer checked to some degree.

We could all enter info into it right now, and if I saw Katie’s technique for a chuck roast on Wiki (aluminum foil, CoM and onion soup), I’d be inclined to think it was right…and since I’ve tired it many times since I learned it, I know it’s right. So, grain of salt and double check….but the same can be said about most sources of info these days.

 

[buckytom]

like i said in another thread, it's a great resource when you're trying to explain yourself.

this sounds like a bit of a witchhunt, against wiki. most things in it's database are fairly easily recognized facts.

of course subjects that reside in or at least have grey areas can be spinned by weirdos and red sox fans, umm, sorry, redunundant.

i've found some questionable "definitions" in regards to historic events and facts/figures, but then, history is only the victor's perception.

but, for the most part, i've found it to be a very useful tool for everything from getting basic info the be able to do more research, to defining unknown terms that are so new to our culture that there's not much reliable info on them in any form.

you have to be an idiot to believe anything you read right away, anyway.

 

[YT2095]

I tend to use it for the bibliographies at the bottom, and then search from there, it`s a nice platform to take off from.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Trust but verify..........

 

[Andy M.]

like i said in another thread, it's a great resource when you're trying to explain yourself.

this sounds like a bit of a witchhunt, against wiki. most things in it's database are fairly easily recognized facts.

of course subjects that reside in or at least have grey areas can be spinned by weirdos and red sox fans, umm, sorry, redunundant.

i've found some questionable "definitions" in regards to historic events and facts/figures, but then, history is only the victor's perception.

but, for the most part, i've found it to be a very useful tool for everything from getting basic info the be able to do more research, to defining unknown terms that are so new to our culture that there's not much reliable info on them in any form.

you have to be an idiot to believe anything you read right away, anyway.

People don't look up 'fairly easily recognized facts'. They look up stuff they don't know.

Sadly, some people are idiots or Yankee fans.

 

[Andy M.]

I tend to use it for the bibliographies at the bottom, and then search from there, it`s a nice platform to take off from.

Excellent idea!

 

[GB]

People don't look up 'fairly easily recognized facts'. They look up stuff they don't know.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Many people do not know what you would consider easily recognized facts.

 

[Andy M.]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Many people do not know what you would consider easily recognized facts.

Exactly!

Each person looks up stuff they don't know. And no one looks up stuff they already know. So they would be inclined to accept the info as accurate as it's not easily recognizeable to them. Which is why they looked it up in the first place.

 

[YT2095]

I can say that most of the High end Physics stuff will be accurate, as I know most the guys that contribute there, and they would not say bad things.

 

[buckytom]

Each person looks up stuff they don't know. And no one looks up stuff they already know. So they would be inclined to accept the info as accurate as it's not easily recognizeable to them. Which is why they looked it up in the first place.

andy, i look up stuff that i know a lot about, but need to get some more info on the matter to be more accurate in my use of my knowledge.

i also look up stuff that i know, and use the link to wiki's explanation for expediency. a perfect example would be the picture i used in the chopsticks thread to explain korean steel chopsticks.

 

[Andy M.]

andy, i look up stuff that i know a lot about, but need to get some more info on the matter to be more accurate in my use of my knowledge...

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.

 

[GB]

You could say the same thing about DC though Andy. There is really no difference between wiki and DC as both are getting information from users who post it.

 

[Andy M.]

Yes. Except maybe the expectations are different.

Wikipedia=encyclopedia=the ultimate source for reliable information. Where did you go for info for school papers and reports - the encyclopedia. Brittannica ruled.

I think expectations are a bit different here. Not to excuse misinformation or errors.

 

[GB]

I do not think your definitions are not accurate.

Wikipedia does not equal encyclopedia.

Wikipedia = free-content encyclopedia

There is a difference.

 

[Andy M.]

You are correct.

However, consider what the perceptions of many users may be. The fact that we see Wiki links presented here as 'proof' so often should give you an idea of how it is perceived (differently from what it is).