#1
Most of you guys don't trust the content on Wikipedia. Why not? I know it's user edited, but there are citations and you can always check those websites to verify the information. Also, theres always fags camping the articles to make sure no one changes it.
#2
I do trust Wikipedia.
New To Town With A Made Up Name

In The Angel's City

Chasing Fortune And Fame
09/03/2012
#3
next timea teacher says that Wiki isn't a reliable source of information, I'm gonna say "How do I know YOU'RE a reliable source of information???"
#6
Most of them are right, But if you ever look for anything completely obscure be careful cause nobody checks them and from my experience they usually stay how they are for a long time.
BRIAN. SCHNEIDER.
#7
Because people overreact.


I trust Wiki for the majority of things. Now, yes, I've spotted bad entries and whatnot, and it's not going to be a "perfect" encyclopedia, because it's open source, but still.

It's good for what it is, and can be trusted. Just don't use it as a SOLE source.
Voted 3rd Friendliest User of UG 2010

BUILD A TIME MACHINE, AND JERK OFF IN IT, AND SEND IT TO HITLER!


Saxo-Walrus

Steam & PSN ID: Panopticon20
#8
i like wiki, i just don't cite it as a source because teachers hate it. i often check the citations and just use those, though.

i love how anyone can find general information on anything using one handy little website.
#9
i trust it you just cant use it to cite things
Quote by SOADrox429
Dude... I want to date a drum major. I bet they could fuck in time to Tool.
#10
Didn't a study show that wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica?
#11
I dont trust Wikepedia because i know theres more people like me out there.
You can call me Aaron.


♠♣♥♦
Out on parole, any more instances of plum text and I get put back in...
#12
It's that user editing that always make people unsure. I just use it as an easy source. the teacher says 'look up ....' the lazy way out is just to check up wiki.
#13
If you're not a total idiot then it's pretty reliable.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#14
I trust it - not ANYONE can edit it. For example, my school computers can't, because they've been banned. Sure there are billions of people worldwide - but the number of people wanting to help wiki usually outnumbers the people who want to harm it.
Quote by metal4all
Just, no. Locrian should be treated like that gay cousin. Just avoid him cuz he's weird, unstable, and is attracted to the wrong thing.


Quote by steven seagull
Big deal, I bought a hamster once and they put that in a box...doesn't make it a scale.
#15
It's not user edited - it's peer edited. Newspaper and magazine articles are also peer edited. So are reports on the television.
#16
Everyone just doubts the information there because it can be edited by anyone.
Actually, I tried to edit an article there. And I deliberately made mistakes. Then a few minutes later.. It got changed back because they knew that what I added was bull****.

So yeah, I pretty much trust Wiki..
Quote by BobMarleysGhost
Death Erection would make a great Old School Death Metal or Thrash band name.


Quote by Zero-Hartman
I'd take on Courtney Love, punch her right in the penis.


#18
Wikipedia is a relatively reliable source. I would not cite it, though. Using the user-edited articles to understand the material, checking the sources and references at the bottom of the page, and then citing those should be perfectly acceptable.

In one study, it was found that Wiki was almost as reliable (if not more) than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
#19
Everyone I know does. Except my teachers.
Quote by SloppyJoseph
It doesn't fit my playing style at all so I figured it would be good for me
#20
Quote by TheReFiller
Everyone I know does. Except my teachers.


I wish my teachers did, it's always where I check first for pretty much anything.

I did a project on rocks in grade 9 and everything I needed was in there.
Quote by 20cdndollars
You are god, floppypick



Floppydick


If that's how you read my name, leave a message saying so on my profile
#21
Because kids from 4chan and the pit can go on and change whatever they want. I always go to wikipedia, and then go to their references and get my information there.
#22
Its usually pretty good, but some things are more untrust worthy on it then others (celeb articles and the like)

Quote by floppypick
I wish my teachers did, it's always where I check first for pretty much anything.

I did a project on rocks in grade 9 and everything I needed was in there.


Yeah I had a bio lab-paper for a class, and i barely remember anything on the stuff she asked for in the paper. Wiki'd it, got a 28/30.
Founder of UG's David Bowie Fan Club. Pm to join.

Founder of UG's "Rockers against being freakishly skinny" Club. PM to join.
#23
Instead of taking wiki as gospel, go down to the sources section and read those, because whatever those say are probably going to be correct. Some writers can get away with "weasel words" and also say that their "fact" is common knowledge, which doesn't need to be cited if you can find more than three sources.

If you see the little "citation needed" above a sentence, then forget about using that paragraph, because it hasn't been verified and can't be trusted.

Personally, I would rather trust research books and the like if I was basing my academic and future career on the essay I was writing.

Basically, the more obscure the facts are, the worse time you are going to have of finding a reliable source. So you should be fine in like grade 8 doing an overview of what a verb is. However, in grade 12 if you're writing a research paper on the basics of astronomical physics, don't count on it.
Last edited by st.stephen at Sep 7, 2008,
#24
Quote by biga29
I dont trust Wikepedia because i know theres more people like me out there.



Haha word.
GO YANKEES!
#25
I have edited out inaccuracies in Wiki articles, only to find them back the next day.

I have no faith in Wiki.
Right Leaning Centrist with Socialist Tendencies
Gun nut