Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How reliable a source do you find Wikipedia to be?

  1. Oct 5, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 5, 2005 #2
    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. Oct 5, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  5. Oct 5, 2005 #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.
  6. Oct 5, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  7. Oct 5, 2005 #6
    From my observations I see mostly textbook science. But textbooks are outdated sometime, obsolete even.
  8. Oct 5, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah, there is an edit button, Andre you know, people need education ?
  9. Oct 5, 2005 #8
    Whenever I see evident errors I edit the page and correct them....
  10. Oct 5, 2005 #9
    I love wikipedia, and until just a minute ago I had never questioned the site.

    Check this out:

  11. Oct 5, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Hmmm . . . so did you correct that?
  12. Oct 5, 2005 #11
    well it doesn't say that any more
  13. Oct 5, 2005 #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.
  14. Oct 5, 2005 #13
    Yeah somebody must have fixed it.
  15. Oct 6, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
  16. Oct 6, 2005 #15
    Blatant vandalism on wikipedia - a non-problem

    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.
  17. Oct 6, 2005 #16
    Nor have I. It helps that the pages that are often vandalized are also the most watched pages too.

    Wiki is your friend. :biggrin:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook