How reliable a source do you find Wikipedia to be?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthyaouw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Source Wikipedia
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the reliability of Wikipedia as a resource, highlighting its usefulness while acknowledging concerns about content moderation. Participants note that while errors can occur due to its open editing system, many inaccuracies are quickly corrected by vigilant users. The consensus is that Wikipedia is generally reliable for a wide range of topics, especially in science, although caution is advised with highly politicized subjects. Instances of vandalism are typically addressed swiftly, with many editors actively monitoring changes. Overall, Wikipedia is viewed as a valuable starting point for information, particularly when articles include references.
matthyaouw
Gold Member
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
From my observations I see mostly textbook science. But textbooks are outdated sometime, obsolete even.
 
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 But textbooks are outdated sometime, obsolete even.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 ?
 
Whenever I see evident errors I edit the page and correct them...
 
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:
 
Back
Top