How reliable a source do you find Wikipedia to be?

In summary, the conversation discusses the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information due to the lack of strict moderation and potential for accumulating incorrect information. However, the majority of participants find Wikipedia to be a useful resource for a wide range of topics, though some have noticed errors and have taken it upon themselves to correct them. Instances of blatant vandalism are rare and are typically reverted within a short period of time. Despite its flaws, the conversation concludes that Wikipedia is a valuable starting point for research and can provide helpful information if used with caution.
  • #1
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,125
5
I've found that it's a very useful resource, but I've been having a look through their policies and guidelines etc, and it seems like no one strictly moderates content. Surely this system is prone to accumulating incorrect information, be it deliberate or accidental. How reliable a source do you find Wikipedia to be? Has anyone ever had problems with it in the past?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
matthyaouw said:
I've found that it's a very useful resource, but I've been having a look through their policies and guidelines etc, and it seems like no one strictly moderates content. Surely this system is prone to accumulating incorrect information, be it deliberate or accidental. How reliable a source do you find Wikipedia to be? Has anyone ever had problems with it in the past?

I have certainly seen errors, but that's to come with "open" information. For the most part though, it is a really good resource.
 
  • #4
I think that wikipedia has such wide variety of topics that no-one can singly just modify thw whole range of topics. Rather, i think it is an implication of we will notice if there is something obnoxious with an article.
 
  • #5
The only thing I don't trust them on are highly politicized topics. I once corrected a mistake I saw on a Thomas Hobbes entry, but aside from that, they seem to be pretty good.
 
  • #6
From my observations I see mostly textbook science. But textbooks are outdated sometime, obsolete even.
 
  • #7
Andre said:
From my observations I see mostly textbook science. But textbooks are outdated sometime, obsolete even.

Ah, there is an edit button, Andre you know, people need education ?
 
  • #8
Whenever I see evident errors I edit the page and correct them...
 
  • #9
I love wikipedia, and until just a minute ago I had never questioned the site.

Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

From the above link said:
Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), sometimes called Abe Lincoln had created the car called the Lincoln Navigator. After his first ride in one he thought he should sell it and nicknamed it Honest Abe, the Rail Splitter, and the Great Emancipator, was the 16th President of the United States (1861 to 1865), and the first president from the Republican Party.
 
  • #10
Hmmm . . . so did you correct that?
 
  • #11
well it doesn't say that any more
 
  • #12
Wikipedia...I love it. Yes it is prone to errors...but it has a great range of topics and having a 500% better chance of finding good answers on there makes it better than not getting any answers. If the errors are not blaring like the abe lincoln error, they are usually subtle enough that you still get the right idea about something.
 
  • #13
Yeah somebody must have fixed it.
 
  • #14
It's a good starting point. I have more confidence if an article has a reference or references.

I have noticed at least one glaring technical error in subject, but I just haven't gotten around to addressing it.
 
  • #15
Blatant vandalism on wikipedia - a non-problem

loseyourname said:
Hmmm . . . so did you correct that?
There is no need to. Instances of vandalism are reverted almost immediately. The reason is that people who edit wiki pages usually keep those pages on their watchlists, and wikipedia makes it is easy to see exactly what was changed in a given editing iteration. To revert an instance of vandalism an editor simply goes to the history page, views the last non-vandalized version, and saves it (usually titling the edit "rv vandalism", or simply "rv v"). I have never seen an instance of blatant vandalism past more than a few hours. Often, instances of blatant vandalism are reverted within minutes.
 
  • #16
hitssquad said:
I have never seen an instance of blatant vandalism past more than a few hours. Often, instances of blatant vandalism are reverted within minutes.
Nor have I. It helps that the pages that are often vandalized are also the most watched pages too.

Wiki is your friend. :biggrin:
 

Related to How reliable a source do you find Wikipedia to be?

1. How is information on Wikipedia verified?

Wikipedia relies on a community of volunteer editors to verify information on the site. These editors use reliable sources and fact-checking to ensure the accuracy of information.

2. Can anyone contribute to Wikipedia?

Yes, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia by creating a free account. However, not all contributions are accepted as they must meet the site's guidelines for reliable sources and neutrality.

3. Is Wikipedia biased?

Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view on all topics, and editors work to remove any bias that may be present in articles. However, as with any source, it is important to critically evaluate the information presented.

4. How frequently is information on Wikipedia updated?

Wikipedia is constantly being updated, as editors are constantly adding and revising information. However, the frequency of updates may vary depending on the popularity and relevance of the topic.

5. Can I use information from Wikipedia in my research or academic work?

While Wikipedia can be a good starting point for research, it is not considered a reliable source for academic work. It is recommended to use the sources cited in Wikipedia articles instead of the Wikipedia article itself.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
840
Replies
2
Views
867
  • General Discussion
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
843
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
799
Back
Top