What do you think of Wikipedia?

[AviatorTom]

Wikipedia is the most-used online encyclopedia and reference website, as well as being the 7th most-used website of all.

As of 21 December 2021, The English Wikipedia has 6,426,686 articles and 54,823,175 pages. There are 42,756,378 registered users who edit articles and add content on Wikipedia. In addition, there are 325 different language editions of Wikipedia (Spanish, French, German...).

Reviews of Wikipedia compared to other encyclopedias like Britannica and World Book have shown that Wikipedia is more accurate and more current. As an example of its currency, the recent tornado that affected several US states including the destruction of Mayfield, Kentucky had a Wikipedia article while the tornado was still moving, and a full and detailed description within hours of the tornado's end.

Many teachers and college professors do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source, even though Wikipedia articles have references to trusted sources; that's a key guideline for all Wikipedia articles. Some people say that anyone who thinks Wikipedia is an unreliable source should continue their quest to find a better website.

So... what do you think of Wikipedia? Do you use it as a reference. Are you a registered user? Do you edit on Wikipedia?

Updates

+1 y

Wikipedia takes its accuracy and correctness seriously. There's an unbiased article on it that you might like to read:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

[N192K001]

Generally reliable, BUT… (like with all information-sources) it's not free and/or immune from manipulation, as warned by Berlin's state-media:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/w4EdAQpEdNY

And note that this dates back to 2014 and ONLY mentions discovered and documented corporate public-relations (P. R.) manipulations. We all know that the world has changed significantly then, and that there are more than just corporate interests who benefit from controlling the flow of information. Methods now may have become far more sophisticated than the bad-faith edits & admin-infiltration methods in the video-report.

Open-source projects (like Wikipedia) works best not only with many good-faith users, but also many good-faith contributors. Wikipedia's problem then (as I suspect is still the case now) is the declining good-faith contributors, which only makes the infiltration-problem even worse.

Then, there's the issue of topics. As mentioned by fellow G@G-users, bias is far more obvious in more controversial articles (esp. approaching politics, geopolitics, etc.). Certain sources considered reputable to some editors will be propaganda to others (lol 🤣 as though sources that propagate ideas are not by definition propaganda!), and will be rejected, removed, and/or replaced with others from opposing persuasions, instead of just listing the data-sets, reasoning, assumptions, and counter-arguments of each side side-by-side.

That said, I still use it often, and contribute whenever I can. But still, check the sources (esp. the more shocking, definitive, and controversial the claim), ask who benefits from the explanation as is, and use (a) online-translator (s) to contrast its contents in other languages (esp. in topics of international disputes to see a fuller picture of the global dispute). But with less significant topics (ex. types of cheese, ), guard can possibly be lowered to a reasonable, more-appropriate extent.

[MuddyMole]

For most people, Wikipedia is a great source of information (at least on less controversial topics).
The reason teachers/lecturers/etc don't allow students to cite it as a source is not because it's unreliable - it's simply because you should *always* cite the primary source (Wikipedia is a tertiary source). That's just basic academic writing.

That still doesn't guarantee the reliability of the source (though a peer reviewed paper in a respected journal is likely more reliable) - what it does, is ensure that the reader is able to verify it themselves. For example, the reader might want to check that a scientist used a suitable methodology, or check that someone's comments haven't been twisted or taken out of context.

If Wikipedia doesn't cite a source, then it can't be trusted for academic purposes. If it does, then why would you NOT cite that instead of Wikipedia? (after first verifying it, of course). Apart from anything else, there's always the chance that someone will come along and read what you've written, go to Wikipedia to check it, and the page will have been edited so that they can no longer find the primary source.

[Razp_Sorbet]

I don't think a lot of teachers explained why they don't want to see Wikipedia as a source. It's because Wikipedia is information compiled from a bunch of different sources, you can still use it, find info on it, just make sure you click the number [2] for example to get the actual source and maybe some extra info. It's a great way to see a bunch of information on one page rather than searching through 10 pages to find it.

[AviatorTom]

You've described what my kids did in High School. Use Wikipedia to find the information, then use its cited references in their papers and essays.

[whirled_up_girl]

I know some people complain about the acuracy but I like the fact that it's a quick one stop reference reference guide, I like to land on that page and scroll through the references at the bottom many times.

[AviatorTom]

As some commenters have noted, you have to be careful about any place you go for reference, making sure (as best you can) that it's factual, correct and unbiased.

[Moose304]

Only a fool takes ANYTHING at face value without doing some research. I can't remember the exact item, but I saw something on Wikipedia's INCOSE page that was out and out wrong. I am a self-taught systems engineer and a member of INCOSE. I also have degrees in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering. AND have 30 years in this business. Then after discovering this article had some factual mistakes I started looking into some other places where Systems Engineering in specific and engineering, in general, was being presented. A lot of horseshit all over those articles. Took a long time to get corrected. Wikipedia is a great place to get started when researching something. Just use it with caution!

[WindAtMyBack]

I'm a Wikipedia junkie. I typicaly have multiple Wikipedia tabs open at any given time. It's very common to have a dozen or so open at once, and 20-30 over the course of a day.

I rarely read entire articles. I usually read enough to get a feel for the subject. If it's something I'm really interested in, I'll read more, and follow through at other sites.
I often check the talk page to see what people are saying and see if there is anything controversial in an article. I also follow a lot of reference links.

When I was in school, the classrooms all had sets of encyclopedias. They were considered a legit resource. That wasn't true any more by high school where kids were expected to do more in depth research at the library. And yes school kids still use the library. I see them there all the time.

[Sun_Kim-Ai]

I think it's a very valuable instrument - nonetheless, I've been pushing to get it banned in the schools of my town, with the motion having to be passed next January.
I want to encourage our children to make their researches on books and at the library, not on a computer and on the Internet.

[AviatorTom]

So the motion is to ban all Internet searches and references, and force the students to do manual searches, like I did when I was in school. Good luck with that. If you haven't already, I suspect you're going to get a lot of pushback from teachers, parents and students, and this is going to be practically impossible to monitor and enforce.

[Sun_Kim-Ai]

I understand it won't be easy, but I'm not discouraged by that.
They tried to prevent me from making other changes in the communal and public infrastructures, but I still did them nonetheless!
However, I recognize I should do things more gradually and after this I'll stop proposing new changes for a while.

[FunkyMonkee]

It's okay. In a lot of cases, a good source of info but, in others, maybe not so hot. About 15 years ago, I greatly added to the Dickie Goodman and Bill Buchanan pages and, after a year or so, someone came along and tossed most of what I wrote and changed the rest.

[AviatorTom]

I just looked at those two articles and most (if not all) of the edits in the past 3 years have been copy-edits, mainly format changes, correcting links, etc.

When you added to these articles, did you include valid references? If not, that might lead to your text being changed or removed.

[FunkyMonkee]

I don't recall if I added much (if any) text to the articles but I DID add a lot of the records they made! Dickie's page only had about 8 or 10 records, Bill's only had, maybe 3! Seeing as how I probably have the biggest break-in collection in the world, now, who better (but someone from their families) to create those lists! But, someone changed them a few years ago so, I haven't bothered since then. I can tell that SOME of the stuff I wrote or corrected is still there but, other stuff was changed or removed. I'm not about to go back and re-correct it every time someone decides to change it!

[Aurora1010]

I use it for quick information, if I am really interested in a topic then I use more sources than just it.
It's not always credible though, I heard once it said Shakira was born in Germany lol.

[AviatorTom]

There are mistakes sometimes, usually caused by people vandalizing an article. Most of the time, those are quickly reverted and, if it's a repeat offender, that person is banned from editing.

[Aurora1010]

Also, I think it's a good source in general and I appreciate the information

[Aurora1010]

@AviatorTom, Oh I see

[BipBipLeddus]

Wikipedia now requires sources to be cited to create or edit an article, and it's also peer reviewed so that faulty sources are removed.

Prior to that, it was a shit show.

The reason teachers didn't allow Wikipedia as a source, at least when I was in school, was because you were supposed to be learning to do your own research and cite your own sources, rather than relying on an amalgamation of sources.

Basically, "show your work" but not for math.

[Dana223]

Love it. It is my number one source of information when I want to learn about something, research what it is. I trust its contents. It is not by accident that politically unstable countries like Turkey banned it. I mostly use the English (en) version of Wikipedia because that's where the broadest information is available.
I don't edit articles, but I am a financial donator of Wikipedia each year.

[ArrowheadSW]

I use it often. If my memory serves me, I believe there is a way to dispute the authenticity of a posting? And I have heard that most colleges don't want students to use it as a reference. I can see why, as it is too easy... LOL... Not necessarily inaccurate... I think maybe colleges want their students to go to the more primary sources and dig deeper.

But I think it is great.

[dustybiker]

Goos for the colleges who push for authenticity. I know a lot of people refuse to use it based on their own negative experiences.

[dustybiker]

*good (note I’m correcting my error) 😉

[SaoirseS]

I use it, but mainly as a start point. I like to check out the references they cite as source material. I check several sources if it's important. If it's something like a celebrity bio, whatever is printed is usually enough for me.

[Jackpot7s]

Well on one hand it is very informative when it comes to movies, TV shows and other things but on the other it straight up lies when it comes to anything the mainstream is pushing. It goes with the official narrative on everything that is fake that the mainstream media puts out and I am sure they are lying about a lot of history too.

[JCrockett]

I don't mind its imprecision and editability. That's why it's able to be so thorough. The dealbreaker is the political bias. They strictly and unabashedly enforce particular narratives. And they usually do so by unevenly applying their supposedly objective rules, with complete double standards.

It's worse than useless for ideas, events, history, or anything remotely controversial. But it can be a good primer for more apolitical, objective topics.

[es20490446e]

You just need to fact check the references, which would be the same with any other encyclopedia.

[AviatorTom]

Exactly...

[BCRanger10]

I like Wikipedia. Though I still prefer to check outside sources.

[AviatorTom]

It's always good to get multiple opinions.

[MCheetah]

It's just another tool for propaganda, nowadays. Look up any topic that is not SJW/far-left approved, and see how biased and inaccurate the articles will be. Such as MGTOW or January 6th, 2021. And good luck trying to actually edit something on there without them erasing your edits. Wikipedia is as much of a "trusted source" as CNN and FOX News are "trusted and reliable news channels."

[Kaneki05]

It's the best. And people who say's it's inaccurate have clearly not used it much or know much tbh. Literally only once has it ever been wrong for me and i could easy tell why there was a mistake tbh it wasn't a big deal.

[DryGermanGuy]

Been on it practically every day. 95% reading, 5% editing. It's quicker than a trip to my bookshelf encyclopedias!

[Better_off_here]

i enjoy it and i use it a lot and i do try to donate when i can to the site, it is helpful in finding out the info you may need. the downside of it is it is run by other users of the site and can be changed at times which is annoying i go there and i sometimes find different wording and phrases of the info i saw just last week.

[normalice]

I like it but it is true you shouldn't trust anything on it that hasn't been up for a while, especially if it is a topic of controversy.

[purplepoppy]

There are errors in it but the same could be said for lot of books I think the main reason schools ban it is its too easy to use.

[bean2k21]

wait, I thought this was Wikipedo

[Anonymous]

I trust Wikipedia.

"Many teachers and college professors do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source, even though Wikipedia articles have references to trusted sources"

Many Schools and Colleges are not about learning things and certainly not for the intelligent. Many Schools and Colleges are simply imposing blind and unquestionable obedience.