Wikipedia? Trustworthy?

[BeerShaman]

Is wikipedia trustworthy? I've heard it contains a lot of lies and misinformation. What about your experiences? Have you faced or encountered any misinformations on wiki?

[anarcho-communist4]

No wiki is not a reliable source of info.

Remember it can be edited by anyone, even fascists!

[Q]

Wikipedia has some strict policies actually regarding how to write "proper" articles, so it's pretty ok for most articles. Just on the leftwing articles it is very biased, this is because wikipedia goes for the "norm" of society and if you want to break that "norm" you'll have to back it up by many references to other sites, know your shit and be prepared to wage long discussions in the discussion tab to get your point through.

Alas, wikipedia is worth shit on leftwing info.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

mm, its okay to use as a starting point in research, but take everything on it with a grain of salt and hold anything that you find in reliable sources far above it if they contradict one another.

[Blackscare]

Yea, it's good for a quick glance at some basic info so long as you don't take it as fact. You can usually find links to better sources.

[BAM]

It depends. Some articles are very good, some poor. It's always worth looking at the "discussion" page to see what debates have gone on between contributors. A lot of them are tedious, needless to say, but it will give you an idea of how impartial it is.

I tihnk in general wikipedia falls foul of the tendency of intense minorities: people with marginal points of view who are doggedly persistent. Look at all the right wing lolbertarian loons who feel the need to plaster their perspective all over the economics articles, for instance. So, the NPV perspective, though mostly good, can lead to a skewed overall impression of how important a marginal opinion actually is.

[JazzRemington]

Most people who use wikipedia for serious research purposes use it to get background information on the topic or as a jumping off point. I don't know about citing it in a paper, but if you do make sure it doesn't have any warnings at the top of the page or don't rely on it as a sole source for something (you shouldn't just use one source to begin with).

[AK]

There are some things that Wikipedia just can't lie about. As Q said, it's fine for most articles. Just steer clear of articles on the far-left. Otherwise, it's a trustworthy source, mostly written by basement-dwelling Star Trek nerds who know just about everything and have IQs of approximately 300 (my apologies to any Revlefters that edit wiki articles) - and most articles have a long list of sources and references, so they're pretty safe.

[Telemakus]

It's good to get a general run down on a particular topic, and you should never believe anything you read based on one source any way. Do some actual research ffs!

[Invincible Summer]

Is wikipedia trustworthy? I've heard it contains a lot of lies and misinformation. What about your experiences? Have you faced or encountered any misinformations on wiki?

I find most articles are pretty good. You can tell which are "better" from the sources at the bottom.

Sometimes I cheat on papers by reading stuff on Wiki, then referring to the cited source.

[Foldered]

I find most articles are pretty good. You can tell which are "better" from the sources at the bottom.

Sometimes I cheat on papers by reading stuff on Wiki, then referring to the cited source.
:wub:
No, I'm not being overdramatic. Wiki is a good starting point, for the most part (sometimes you will even get a link to a peer-reviewed article in the sources). Most articles have decent (or even beyond decent) citations that lead you to legit sources on any topic... of course, this does not work in every context, but all it takes is a bit of sense and skepticism and you're set.

[Redbrasco]

never trust anything on that site, nothing.

[Imposter Marxist]

Is wikipedia trustworthy? I've heard it contains a lot of lies and misinformation. What about your experiences? Have you faced or encountered any misinformations on wiki?

Go to the Red Army Page.

Go to he American Army Page.

:mad:

[ComradeOm]

Otherwise, it's a trustworthy source, mostly written by basement-dwelling Star Trek nerds who know just about everything and have IQs of approximately 300...Which is one reason why I'd trust Wikipedia articles on Star Trek (or if I really, really need to know who the big bad was in episode 6, series 4 of Buffy) and little else

[StoneFrog]

Wikipedia has some strict policies actually regarding how to write "proper" articles, so it's pretty ok for most articles. Just on the leftwing articles it is very biased, this is because wikipedia goes for the "norm" of society and if you want to break that "norm" you'll have to back it up by many references to other sites, know your shit and be prepared to wage long discussions in the discussion tab to get your point through.

Alas, wikipedia is worth shit on leftwing info.

Maybe the people here could start a group to try and get better information in to wikipedia about the left. Most people when just learning about the left often go directly to wikipedia to learn. If we can get good information in there maybe we can help change the minds of a few people who would other wise not give the left another chance.
But as you said you need many references and the will to fight for your point, i am sure we have people here with those skill to be able to get good references. Do we have the will here to change wikipedia and fight?

[Q]

Maybe the people here could start a group to try and get better information in to wikipedia about the left. Most people when just learning about the left often go directly to wikipedia to learn. If we can get good information in there maybe we can help change the minds of a few people who would other wise not give the left another chance.
But as you said you need many references and the will to fight for your point, i am sure we have people here with those skill to be able to get good references. Do we have the will here to change wikipedia and fight?

More then once tried before. You might want to contact this guy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/wikipedia-watch-t117199/index.html?t=117199) that tried it last time and ask him about his experiences.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

As far as which articles are and aren't accurate, the ones that focus around TV shows, technology, anime and nature seem to be the ones that are pretty accurate. But Wikipedia has been known to have a religious bias... they've been known to kinda promote some religions and push others down... and with the political articles, anything that seemingly isn't liberal seems to be trashed right off the bat.... and the articles on political leaders follow the same suit. And if there are any articles of theories that seemingly push a conservative idea, then those articles are trashed beyond hope. And again, any leftist articles are just not trustworthy.

[Buffalo Souljah]

I get the same general response from people here, I think: that in many cases, Wikipedia is biased or partisan, and not open to criticisms fcoming from the left. This is a problem. fyi, I am in the process of putting together a wiki primarily focusing on left-radical issues and perspectives (http://wikilution.info). I could certainly use the contributions of individuals who are knowledgeable about particular groups, historical periods or political movements. Once it is "up", I will try to give general accounts on various important issues, generally from a left-leaning viewpoint. For instance, here is a link to the article on the Pinochet coup in Chile. (http://wikilution.info/index.php/Pinochet_Coup_%28September_11,_1973%29) Feel free to check it out, and please feel free to contribute wherever possible.

[Jazzhands]

It used to be completely unreliable, but they've been a lot better about that in recent years. I look at things sentence by sentence, ignore anything that is "citation needed" or that has a dubious source like Robert Conquest. And I'm always extremely careful in articles that have substantial tags at the top. Quality varies widely from article to article. I still would never cite it as a source though. A good strategy on contentious topics such as Nazism is to google translate articles from other languages on the same topic and compare which is better written.

[Andriyan]

Well it can be trustworthy source if you watch out all the sources (for example content [1]). Click on the number [#] and it will take you to the information about the source.

[Burn A Flag]

I think it's fine for facts, just don't expect it not to be biased.

[Pretty Flaco]

I find wikipedia to work best for looking up articles that are nonpolitical or historical, as the articles are usually biased. I end up using it for work in my science classes mostly.

[Wanted Man]

As others have said, it can be used as a starting point if you want to look for other sources. However, I don't see the point to that when I can also use Google Scholar, my university's library, sites like JSTOR, Nexis, and what have you. I find Wikipedia nice when you're really out of ideas, but I think you're going to have a pretty limited perspective when Wikipedia is the starting point for all your research.

I can certainly understand why most would consider a bibliography full of web articles inadmissible. A whole bunch of Wikipedia articles is especially unacceptable.


There are some things that Wikipedia just can't lie about. As Q said, it's fine for most articles. Just steer clear of articles on the far-left. Otherwise, it's a trustworthy source, mostly written by basement-dwelling Star Trek nerds who know just about everything and have IQs of approximately 300 (my apologies to any Revlefters that edit wiki articles) - and most articles have a long list of sources and references, so they're pretty safe.

I disagree with this post, especially with the part that I emphasised. A long list of sources does not automatically mean that it's "safe" or "trustworthy". You may very well be looking at a padded bibliography. Perhaps the author does not actually cite all of these sources, or perhaps they do not really add anything to other sources... And there is the plague of almost all Wikipedia articles: the "Criticism" or "Controversy" section, which basically consists of endless paraphrases of all the different perspectives on a particular subject, no matter how marginal. If those can't be found, you can always insert your own opinion with phrases like "Some argue...", "Critics contend...", "Proponents observe..."

These are all considerations that one should make. I can have a Works Cited list of 20 web articles, but that does not automatically mean that I have made good use of sources. In fact, depending on the nature of the articles, and based on the fact that I only used web articles, it probably won't do me any favours.

[ContrarianLemming]

WIKIPEDIA IS TRUSTWORTHY (citation needed)

[Tatarin]

Agree with most, use neutrally and objectively. But follow the links lower down and be mindful of what they lead to.

At the core, trust only what Michael Parenti writes and says. :D

[JazzRemington]

These are all considerations that one should make. I can have a Works Cited list of 20 web articles, but that does not automatically mean that I have made good use of sources. In fact, depending on the nature of the articles, and based on the fact that I only used web articles, it probably won't do me any favours.

It's best to think of this in terms of comparatives. A wikipedia article that has a bunch of websites as sources cited is better than an article that doesn't have a list of sources cited (depending on the article, websites may be appropriate for sources). It's not really an issue of whether or not the article is an accurate reflection of the sources. Plus, wikipedia is starting to move away from having sections devoted to criticisms and critiques, because those are considered signs that the article wasn't written from a neutral point of view, or at least a relatively balanced view point.