Do You Trust the Information on Wikipedia?

[TheMysticMushrooms]

The general population doesn't know how hard it is to post bullshit on wikipedia. A bunch of kids at my school think it's full of bad info because of one of our teachers now too. I use it for a lots of things including every history project I've ever done that doesn't require a shit ton of dates.

[videoinspectorguy]

Ha Ha Ha Ha! s.p.a.m.Wikipedia is like Penn State and Jerry Sandusky

[carlsm95]

Wikipedia has GREATLY improved since 2006-2007. I remember when there was no semi-protection and vandalism would go unchanged for days on end. Now even the most subtle edits can be reverted within seconds (by a bot) and the most important articles are reserved for autoconfirmed editors only. In regards to the most important articles especially in science they are probably more accurate than Britannica, which I found often has outdated information. WP can only get better through time.

[ImperialEarthEmpire]

ive got a in history just using wikipedia... so long textbook...

[KapitanTony]

i change Wikipedia once to win a flight

[wikipedosuk]

WIKIPEDOS GOING DOWN HARD LOL!

[yoyohooyo]

Also wikipedia states that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. I think this statement was made to protect the owner of wikipedia from liability. I think every article in wikipedia should have this statement at the top of each page. If I was on a jury I would hold wikipedia liable for content. Anyone editing on wikipedia should be required to pay a small registration fee with their credit card and their name must be included with each edit they do.

[yoyohooyo]

You can not trust wikipedia. Wikipedia says it is not a reliable source. Wikipedia does nor seek truth and controversial articles content depends on the non-paid administrators that seized control of the article. You get the spin from the editors that have the authority to block other editors. Also if a news article says the earth is flat and there isn't a news article to opposes that view then wikipedia will have the earth flat regardless of reality. wikipedia sucks.

[FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7]

@yoyohooyo u must be a conservative

[FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7]

@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 haha i come here 3 months later by chance and i am 2nd higher comment.

[sk123010]

just came from the video showing Zionist setting up course on how to editing Wikipedia.

Now that is scary.

[likaner1]

i trust it...i dont give a sht if my teachers say its not true or not i always ace projects when i do the reaserch on wikipedia

[MrPain331]

I don't find the pages on religion or culture biased at all, can you please reference me a sample of this bias?

[kingdomofwitches]

in case of anything to deal with politics we cannot thrust wiki because now several oranisation including government oranisation,spy organisation they have their own data editors to do their own propaganda.ex isreal ,us,china........... have their own people to check negative comments and to add their perspective and to do their own propaganda or their news

[Moldovawineimporter]

Wikipedia is a very inaccurate site due to the information comes from the Public.

For example i live in the republic of Moldova, so I made corrections on the Republic Moldova page.

Next day all my correct changes had been deleted by a Richardwales of the UK to totally incorrect information and this guy added his UK wine import company web link to the pages I corrected .

Then this UK guy put a wikipedia account block on my account so I could never use the site wikipedia again !

[SugarTomAppleRoger]

@Moldovawineimporter Tried to send you a message. What is your id on Wikipedia?

[Moldovawineimporter]

@SugarTomAppleRoger I have been totally blocked from using Wikipedia by a UK man that has been posting his own wine company's web site information on the Moldovan Wikipedia site .

I don't use that site any more because I am now completely Blocked off that site .

What was totally stupid was I updated the Moldovan music section with the newest music artist in Moldova. Thats is how I got caught up in the stupid fight with the UK man that has never been to Moldova.

I live in Chisinau Moldova !

[minamu8]

Guys, you don't understand. Do you guys seriously think that people could just click "edit" and then change it to whatever they what? No way! Then every page would be covered with worthless sh*t. Wikipedia is a great source. Also, notice how thewigly3 commented that Wikipedia gave him/her an A+! In fact, Wikipedia even has a new thing where you can make books out of the pages, which I might even do sometime in the near future.

[sentenal01]

@minamu8 >wiki

>source

The autistics that have a hard on for pointless bullshit that defend it to the death has made me lost my faith in the "validity" in the Wiki idea. This is why no real institution of knowledge either encourages nor uses Wikipedia as a source.

[happygamestvfun1]

In fact, wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources, it is very well moderated and reviwed, and most of the contributors are accredited. Do people lack common sense? They think you can simply click "edit" and there you go it's on wikipedia, wrong, think about it, if you could do that, every wiki page would be covred in spam... oh and I could make my own web page and say what every i wanted to. There will be no mods to stop me becasue i own it... how reliable is that?

[D0inUrM0m1]

i don't think that nerds would spend all day fucking up Wikipedia

[D0oMblAsT]

@D0inUrM0m1 I do, I troll it.

[MahdiRanger]

Wikipedia is great. If the info is edited its always so noticeable, no capital letter, grammer mistakes, or just outrageous things tht are so obviously fake.

[thewigly3]

Wikipedia gave me a A+ woot woot

[3DPlanets]

Yes, I do trust the info on WIkipedia.

[Iranian127]

For reading about things like science, applications, movies, music and etc. Wikipedia is good, and only for it's those editors that make it good. The non-biased agenda free editors who really want to share information.

But for reading anything about culture, religion, history, politics, biographies etc. It is by far the most unreliable and biased source. For people with a certain agenda and POW tend to edit those pages, not to mention the administration system which contain many abusive admins.

[Cantwait4sundaY]

Does wikipedia get reviewed? YES

What makes info on wikipedia any different than info from other sites? Sites can be created by anybody aswell... and it is not as easy as they say to edit content on wikipedia.

I have a 3.8 GPA and have used wikipedia for most of my work... it is much more well put together than books and other web sites, not to mention it's malware free.

[Cantwait4sundaY]

I learn more on wikipedia in 10 minutes then I do all school year.

[joshjhutton]

Wikipedia is good, but can have a strong bias on some pages

[laurigun1]

Some books are more wrong then wikipedia.

[MrCuddlesMom]

Wikipedia is a good source IF you are willing to look up what you find via other sources. If done well, the references usually prove to be decent. So where I wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I might cite an article linked to the entry that expanded on the topic for which I was originally searching.

[multicommon1]

i trust Wikipedia.

[diah4]

It's always good to understand that it was written by people, and people are capable of bias opinions and things like that. It isnt law, but there is some stuff there thats alright.

[Dorfkanal]

How a green party activist inside Wikipedia abused his admin rights to manipulate thousands of articles in order to remove critical viewpoints about man-made global warming:

bit (dot) ly / 5CMOGi

[HarbingerGunship]

I like wikipedia. Not as a source, noting I would cite, but as something to get a quick overview from when writing a paper. I'm using it know on my report on pollution in the Buffalo River. But I still have other sites I'm using to back up what I got from wikipeida

[jomnz]

@HarbingerGunship Exactly, you got it 100% right. It's all about HOW you use Wikipedia.

[JustSivas58]

Are you fucking kidding me? Don't use Wikipedia as your source. It's true that it can be re changed, but it's still not 100% trustful.

[happygamestvfun1]

@JustSivas58 Then what else do we use? Becuase nothing is %100 trustful... and if you have any common sense you would have relised that wiki is one of the most trustful sources

[samihasib]

Wikipedia's greatest asset is its QUANTITY of information... and due to check and balance; its quality is not bad.

[studentofsmith]

It's probably reliable enough when it comes to non-controversial topics but when it comes to things people tend to feel strongly about, like politics or religion, I would be more skeptical.

[Inferno0fBlack]

I trust it. It's given too little credit.

[CarlosJoseMunez88]

I certainly trust it. It's one of very FEW online encyclopedias that are accurate in any way.

[Drybones195]

lol