History Wikipedia Saves the Day - Quicker History Test Studying

  • Thread starter Thread starter Smasherman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wikipedia
AI Thread Summary
Wikipedia serves as a valuable resource for quick study, particularly for subjects like history, allowing users to easily access information without the need for traditional research methods. However, its reliability is questioned due to the potential for inaccuracies, as illustrated by a case where a user mistakenly credited President Taft with founding Yellowstone National Park based on outdated information. While Wikipedia is often a good starting point for general knowledge, its credibility diminishes with topics influenced by opinion or controversy, such as historical figures like Hitler, where myths and rumors abound. Users are advised to verify information and consult additional sources, especially for disputed claims.
Smasherman
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Thanks to Wikipedia, I can study for my history test quicker! Instead of utilizing the index, flipping pages, and scanning, I can just type and read!
 
Science news on Phys.org
Wikipedia rocks!
 
Smasherman said:
Thanks to Wikipedia, I can study for my history test quicker! Instead of utilizing the index, flipping pages, and scanning, I can just type and read!
Wikipedia is not always accurate.

An example in the worst presidents thread, Townsend decided Taft wasn't so bad because he read in Wkii that Taft founded Yellowstone National park, which is not true.

I checked and Taft's profile has been edited, the claim is no longer there.
 
True.

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

So some things may need an edit, but it is the best first port of call.
 
So then it doesn't count as a valid source when you're arguin' right?
 
Mental Gridlock said:
So then it doesn't count as a valid source when you're arguin' right?
It's about as valid as snopes. Sure snopes is accurate a lot of the time, but they make a lot of mistakes. They originally had that Mr Ed really was a zebra, then they took that down and put it under the joke section to cover the mistake they had made.

Overall you can trust the wiki most of the time when dealing with undisputed things like how chromatography works. It gets sketchy when you try to lookup things that are heavily influenced by opinion, such as the history of Hitler. Did he have 1 testicle, or was that a myth made up to make people think of him as less of a man? Did he start up the holocaust because he was addicted to methamphetamines? Was he actually gay? I've heard rumors of all three of those. Which ones are true? Who knows.
 
Historian seeks recognition for first English king https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d07w50e15o Somewhere I have a list of Anglo-Saxon, Wessex and English kings. Well there is nothing new there. Parts of Britain experienced tribal rivalries/conflicts as well as invasions by the Romans, Vikings/Norsemen, Angles, Saxons and Jutes, then Normans, and various monarchs/emperors declared war on other monarchs/emperors. Seems that behavior has not ceased.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
760
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
418
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top