Do you trust Wikipedia?

Do you trust Wikipedia?

  • Yes

    Votes: 128 47.2%

  • No

    Votes: 78 28.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 24.0%
  • Total voters
    271
It's a good starting platform for research, but make sure to round out with some other sources as well. It just depends how deep you want to go and what it's for.
 
For potted biographies of musicians - fair enough.
Not for anything else. I do have editing rights, though, just like the great unwashed masses..
 
On boring topics it is reliable if shallow. On controversial stuff or people it can definitely be incorrect depending on who did the last edit. For casual info its good or a starting point for deeper research. Especially while studying at university I found it a lot less useful than one would think for just about any project other than a starting point overview perhaps. We could never cite wikipedia in varsity anyways.

The main thing I probably use it for these days is looking up info on a person I had not heard of before.
 
I think Wikipedia is just as reliable as any other mainstream source of information. Just like all the popular large media outlets, it can and will be manipulated by large corporations in order to align with their narrative. No one should resort to one source of information for anything they are trying to understand.
 
..... so basically the consensus is "wikipedia says it" proves nothing.... except for what Carl is :ROFL:
 
It was quite useful back in the day (pre-2010) on any matter but now it can easily be manipulated by any "know it all" random with a device.
 
rambo919 said:
..... so basically the consensus is "wikipedia says it" proves nothing.... except for what Carl is :ROFL:
Click to expand...
Is that really what the results of the poll (so far) indicate to you?
 
bwana said:
Is that really what the results of the poll (so far) indicate to you?
Click to expand...
The comments and the results seem to differ in general

EDIT: and either I accidentally read the poll the wrong way around or it flipped in between posts.....
 
Yes, I trust it for things I'm curious about, but for which I don't need a high-level understanding. I also trust it for basic fact-checking (dates, batting averages, etc.)
 
If the topic is controversial you always need multiple sources. An advantage of Wikipedia is that you can see the edit history and discussion around the topic.

Needing multiple sources doesn't only apply to Wikipedia, or even the internet.

Tman543 said:
It was quite useful back in the day (pre-2010) on any matter but now it can easily be manipulated by any "know it all" random with a device.
Click to expand...
When was that not possible?
 
As said before, it depends on the topic.

It's an amazing resource, but unfortunately on "hot topics" it's a shetshow.
People are getting stamped with "misinformation / conspiracy theorist" labels along political angles / agendas. Credentials / achievements are removed, etc.

Looking at some pages' history, it's an absolute travesty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X