Wikipedia is reliable

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
0
I noticed some of you dismiss Wikipedia as "sources" when in fact, it is extremely reliable and well verified. Because of its secular approach and paranoid Christians perceiving it as "atheistic", they created Conservapedia with a clear agenda: conservative point view with Christian beliefs.

Did Wikipedia have a viewpoint? No. As long as you provide both sides, it's ok. I find Wiki extremely well balanced and factual.

These allegations made by Conservapedia are laughable and reveal their clear agenda - they want to make Obama a non-citizen, Obama the source of all evils, accuses Wikipedia for not mentioning "atheism" during the reign of terror (huh?), homophobic, racist, anti-abortion, supporting conservative politicians, promoting creationism, and so forth.

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia

Hello... it's founded by a looney Christian fundie.

Sorry, nope. Wikipedia is extremely reliable and sources are listed for you to read.
 
Wikipedia is not totally reliable. The majority of their information is submitted by the everyday user and is not subject to verification. Got that from the website itself. I have also been advised by different schools in 2 different states that said, "kids may get their background information from the internet, but please do not use Wikipedia as it is not always factual"
 
I've never before heard of Conservapedia. I didn't know that Wikipedia was considered atheistic. I considered it unreliable for other reasons. It's not an original source for anything. It's OK for a jumping off point if one uses the references cited at the end of the article. But I wouldn't consider it an authoritative source for research.

It may be "secular" but no more so than mainstream media or 99% of websites out there.
 
Wikipedia doesn't have a view?

I seem to recall that certain articles regarding a certain recent president were quashed as soon as they came out on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia may strive to be seen as reliable as true scholarly publications with merit such as the Oxford English Dictionary (for example), but that's as far as they will get.

This is due, in part, to the medium which it is published. Just about anyone with Internet access can put his or her writings on the web for all to see. But for someone to get his or her writings in a scholarly publication takes a lot more. It takes review by other scholars just for starters. A lot more is put into it to ensure accuracy and reliablity.
 
It's not reliable for academic papers but I don't see why it's unreliable for posting on a forum. We're not exactly publishing research papers here, folks. Let's not take ourselves so seriously. :giggle:

I might add that anyone with half a brain has enough of a filter to be able to tell what's been messed around with by some idiot and what has been taken from other reliable sources. If you have that filter then you're fine.
 
I know quoting wiki is often a joke on sitcoms........Michael Scott on The Office often uses Wiki as a source.
 
Any article on Wikipedia could have been edited by any moron. I have always been discouraged from using Wikipedia being as a source by any teacher I've ever had. I go to a public high school where diversity and individualism is identified. I highly doubt that religion has influenced them to discourage students from using Wikipedia.
 
Michael Scott: Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.
 
'Office' fans, inspired by Michael Scott, flock to edit Wikipedia
Updated 4/12/2007 8:06 AM | Comments 1 | Recommend 4 E-mail | Save | Print |


Enlarge NBC Universal

Steve Carell, who plays Michael Scott on the NBC show 'The Office,' created a Wikipedia frenzy when he used the website in a recent episode to attempt to foil an employee's desire to get a raise.



NEW YORK — In the NBC series The Office, the boss Michael Scott turned to Wikipedia for tips on fending off an employee's request for a pay raise. Viewers quickly flocked to the online encyclopedia and added their take to its entry on negotiations.
Administrators at Wikipedia had to limit editing of the entry, most recently late Tuesday, placing it in "semi-protection" mode. That meant users couldn't make changes anonymously or from accounts fewer than four days old — to discourage those drawn to the site specifically because of the broadcast.


'OFFICE' NEGOTIATION: See the Wikipeida entry

The site imposed similar restrictions on the entry twice before, only to see vandalism continue after they were lifted.

Wikipedia is a collaborative reference site where anyone can add, change or even delete entries, regardless of expertise. The thinking is that the collective wisdom results in a better product overall, and members of the community can watch for any vandalism and reverse it.

In the case of the "negotiation" entry, viewers quickly added phony tips in response to clueless advice from Scott, played by Steve Carell, in last week's episode.

One edit simply replaced the entry with a statement praising the television program. That was followed by the insertion of Scott's tips for getting the upper hand, including "suddenly changing the location" and "refusing to talk first."

Users made more than 100 changes, including those to reverse the vandalism, before the site imposed the latest restrictions on revisions.

Wikipedia does face vandalism from time to time as a result of high-profile mentions.

Fans of Stephen Colbert's Comedy Central show The Colbert Report flocked to Wikipedia to alter articles on elephants after he said on the program, "all we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true — for instance, that Africa has more elephants today than it did 10 years ago."

Changes aren't always noticed and fixed immediately.

In late 2005, prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of The Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA TODAY, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.
 
Loghead said:
Any article on Wikipedia could have been edited by any moron. I have always been discouraged from using Wikipedia being as a source by any teacher I've ever had. I go to a public high school where diversity and individualism is identified. I highly doubt that religion has influenced them to discourage students from using Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Yup, use wikipedia is bad for college but always use citation on below if you need proper source to cite instead of wikipedia.

I'm college student.
 
Reba said:
I've never before heard of Conservapedia. I didn't know that Wikipedia was considered atheistic. I considered it unreliable for other reasons. It's not an original source for anything. It's OK for a jumping off point if one uses the references cited at the end of the article. But I wouldn't consider it an authoritative source for research.

It may be "secular" but no more so than mainstream media or 99% of websites out there.
Click to expand...

KristinaB said:
Wikipedia is not totally reliable. The majority of their information is submitted by the everyday user and is not subject to verification. Got that from the website itself. I have also been advised by different schools in 2 different states that said, "kids may get their background information from the internet, but please do not use Wikipedia as it is not always factual"
Click to expand...


I'm with these posters on this one. It came as a surprise to me that others would consider it atheistic; it doesn't seem any more atheistic than other sites that I've surfed in the past. Though I'll use Wiki for referrence, I do not consider it an authoritative source for research and college research because it's submitted by your average user and it's not subject to verification. Reliable? Maybe.. I'd rather use a more authoritative source for serious research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top