What does AG think? Is Wikipedia the right place to go to for information? If not, how do you think Wikipedia could be modified to be more efficient and accurate? Also, do you think Wikipedia is appropriate for some circumstances and not others?
I think Wikipedia is alright to use if you're just looking up one or two things out of curiosity, but I believe that unless you check where the information comes from, it would not be practical for use in, say, an essay about William Shakespeare. There are plenty of other sources available online that are credible and often just as plentiful with information as Wikipedia is.
Wikipedia has citations for a reason. Look up those citations, get your information off there (also cite those sources if you are writing a thesis or essay), and stay away from the non-certified commentary on said subject.
I think Wikipedia is fine, just check up on the small bits you take out of it in other websites, then it's fine, I usually go to Wiki first, cos it's pretty reliable and unbiased.
Ermm...the thing about Wiki is that anyone can edit it. If you are going to find something for, say, an essay, just stop being lazy and find a book on it. If you're just curious, go ahead and look it up on wiki. But assume that anything with the words "no citation" is complete BS.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Even though "anyone can edit it" there is a team of uber-nerds waiting in basements across America to make false statements true. As long as the citations are verified, in my opinion, it is safe to use for an essay. Even if your professor or teacher says not to use Wikipedia, I think it'd be fair to look at the sources cited on the Wikipedia page, if you know they are credible.
I didn't understand why people are against it so much, if a page is vandalized it will be reverted, if its vandalized often it will be locked.
There are too many articles in Wikipedia to be looked after, and it doesn't hurt to double check. As Hyper said, rent a book, or as Freak also stated, check the citations.
I once had a project on Iwo Jima, and I rented a book on it, and also visited the page about it on Wikipedia. The casualties differed from the Wiki to the book, and I decided to go with the book.
Im a hypocrite since I always use Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is a secondary source, meaning that it is not as reliable as first person sources. I have found false information on Wikipedia, and those "uber nerds" can make mistakes.
i personaly use it as a base then build off of it i use it but don't trust it completely i use imformation then back-ground check the parts i'm not positive about so i say it partialy credible
Yes and no. Sections of it could very well have been written by a Harvard professor. Other sections might have been written by a twelve-year old groupie, or a fifty-something, or just about anyone else with access to the internet.
So, SURE, it can provide completely factual information...you just always have to back it up with proof to be certain.
It can be edited by anyone, it is obviously not credible.
As Freakenstein pointed out there is citations which aren't so easily edited and as rafterman pointed out they do have people who check what's there.
I would regard it as a good starting point.
I remember during a blogtv charity they had PZ Myers rate the accuracy of the wiki page vs. the accuracy of the conservapedia page on him. The wiki page was very accurate with only a few minor questionable points.
So, if I read something on Wikipedia, believe it, and it's true, do I know it?
Here are some worries, feel free to respond to any or all of them.
1) Can beliefs formed via Wikipedia be justified? If it unreliable, then it would seem not. Let's say I flip a coin to help me form my beliefs. Well, that's not a reliable belief formation process, so I'm not justified in believing whatever it is.
2) Or maybe Wikipedia is like sight. It is reliable to a certain point. Just like you wouldn't trust your faculty of sight to get you to the truth at long distances in the dark and in the fog, you wouldn't trust Wikipedia on, say, highly contentious or technical matters. If so, where do we draw the line?
3) Since Wikipedia gets so much crap and can be edited by anyone, are the beliefs you form via an article there simply luckily true? Say someone writes in an article that there were 13 original colonies. But they were just guessing and put in a number that happened to be right. I hesitate to call that knowledge. Does this issue of being only luckily true have an impact on Wikipedia?
I had some more worries but I've forgotten them now. Maybe this will be enough for some fun discussion.
