Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source?

==Wikipedia, and its various related sites, are fine for just getting general information on a topic or person. However one must keep in mind that faulty information can, and does, get on those sites. I do not allow my students to use Wikipedia for any assigned paper or article review. That point is so important that it is even on my syllabus. I would never base anything on something I learned from Wikipedia (alone). Anything I find on Wikipedia I seek to verify through a trustworthy source.

 

I don't remember the topic I googled once and of course wikipedia came up so I read it. And some of the information it gave was incorrect. I think I read anyone can upload an article there, or something like that anyway.

 

Anyone can edit a page on Wikipedia. There is an "edit" tab there, and if you click on it, there you go, YOU are the editor!

Just think, how would you like it if anyone could write your biography? Your neighbors, your inlaws....your enemies! Do you think it would be accurate?

 

Not all the time.

 

But the well written articles on Wik are all well annotated. Check the footnotes and then read the reference material for yourself. All you have to do is go back one step and you will know if the information is reliable or not.

 

I have found it suspect on some information and close on others. It all depends upon the members bias and their credentials or agenda. Their identity and credibility is not made public. Thus the site should always be checked by alternate sources. I was recently checking on some European history regarding the cholera epidemics in the dark ages and it just doesn't add up to other sources I feel are correct. Unless you are the witness to all events ever to have occurred, all historical data is suspect and is susceptible to personal bias. "To the victor go the spoils of war" so too goes the recording of history.

 

Lessee,

Wikipedia says cholera originated between 1816 and 1826.

National Geographic says it originated in 1831.

Is wiki reliable? or National Geographic? I would say the latter since they research historical and geographical facts.

wiki allows anyone who claims to have knowledge of something to put entries on its pages as long as the list sources. Funny thing, sources can be made up.

 

Thanks BibleBoy,

I really haven't had time to do more searching but what I have done does seem to point more to the middle to early 1800's. Confirming more of wikipedia's info. It's not easy sometimes to find out the info you trusted might just be wrong. In either case it must be just an excuse or urban legend that the Europeans were just addicted to their booze. So trying to explain alcohol's introduction into the Church's ordinance of Communion as European cultural bias to wine thus explaining it away as ignorance on their part was wrong. However it is very possible that it was a viciously deliberate act by Satan to cause confusion and division within the True Church of Christ. I must say that it is a brilliant strategy of the adversary as it still works to this day.

Mel

 

I wouldn't use Wikipedia as my sole source of evidence for a statement, especially for any type of formal research. But it is an excellent resource for further reading on a topic and finding more reliable source materials like scientific journals, reputable news sources, magazine articles, research databases, government or corporate documents and original source documents. Of course, "reliable" source documents can also contain error and that must always be kept in mind with any source.

I find Wikipedia in general to be quite reliable but every article must be judged individually. Articles that are written with good NPOV (neutral point of view) practices and have references to important external source documents for key facts and information are generally very reliable.

 

No problem, and again thanks. I had already noted it. :applause:

 

If one is interested in an alternative to Wikipedia, try Googling

conservapedia.com

While its contents are nowhere near as exhaustive as Wikipedia's, they do have quite a few entries on American political personalities and issues.

Totally unbiased?? Well, probably not entirely so, but at least they do present some things in a different light than Wikipedia might.

It's worth a try at least.

 

I have read many complaints regarding over-zealous Wikipedia editors quashing viewpoints that they do not agree with. Here is a post by Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe. His entries on global warming were repeatedly deleted by a Wikipedia editor using the handle 'Tabletop'

LINK


But for non-controversial subjects, Wikipedia can be a great source.

 

It's a good way to get a generel definition of a subject, and it does have some really obscure references, too. I can find whole articles on just one song sometimes.

love,

Sopranette