Is Wikipedia full of wrong informations?

[Anonymous]

Is Wikipedia full of wrong informations?

[Blitzkrieger]

contrary what everyone says wikipedia cannot be edited by anyone. go ahead and go to the page of hitler, you won't be able to edit it at all. some information can be wrong, or not as accurate on wikipedia because the vast amount of information is editable by anyone also its ever changing. if you go there now and you go back in 6 months other sources can be used so thats why its not 100%

[Asker]

For example, there is a province in Turkey called Ardahan. Wikipedia says the lowest temperature recorded in Ardahan is -50.3°C but According to Turkish State Meteorological Service, the lowest temperature recorded in Turkey is -46.4°C. So, what wikipedia says is against what Turkish State Meteorological Service says.

[Blitzkrieger]

you can ask them to change that and give them the source you are talking about, i think they would adjust it.

[Asker]

Okay.

[Asker]

By the way I meant central district of Ardahan Province https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardahan

When you see -50.3°C in Ardahan, It may amaze you but it is unfortunetely not correct :D Because the lowest temperature recorded in Turkey is -46.4°C and it was also not in Ardahan. It was recorded in ''Çaldıran'' County of 'Van'' Province. Çaldıran is a county in Turkey :D

[Anonymous]

Not usually. They have sources at the bottom of the page. Use them and sort out what you find reputable and what you don't.

[Asker]

For example, there is a city in Turkey called Ardahan. Click the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardahan

Wikipedia says that record low temperature in Ardahan is -50.3°C but According to Turkish State Meteorological Service, the lowest temperature recorded in Turkey is -46.4°C.

What Wikipedia says is against what Turkish State Meteorological Service says.

[Opinion Owner]

Here's the site it links to: www.mgm.gov.tr/.../il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx
But, it's not an exact table transfer nor do I see anything about January 1941. There isn't a -50.3 on there either. I don't see any tabs in there. Weird.
Wikipedia is kind of an aggregator of information on those topics. It shouldn't be used as a primary source and you could potentially use it to send you to one. It says Turkish State Meteorological Service as a source, but the information is not jiving. I'm just using Google's translator.

[fauchelevent]

Not necessarily. I've actually found Wikipedia pretty helpful in my essays for university, in terms of finding good references :P Wikipedia can be edited by anyone so there isn't always credible information there and you have to weed through it but it's not always bad. Sometimes it's better than a textbook from back in the 50s or whatever.

[Toad-1]

" in terms of finding good references" yes this is what i like from wiki.

[Asker]

For example, there is a province in Turkey called Ardahan. Wikipedia says the lowest temperature recorded in Ardahan is -50.3°C but According to Turkish State Meteorological Service, the lowest temperature recorded in Turkey is -46.4°C. So, what wikipedia says is against what Turkish State Meteorological Service says.

[Toad-1]

Some things will be incorrect @asker

[Asker]

@Toad-1

This is the Province called Ardahan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardahan

[Asker]

I mean central district of Ardahan Province.

[SoundlessGarden]

Depends. Not always. Wikipedia can just be edited by anyone, so anyone (credible or not) can input information. I'd say generally don't trust the information if it doesn't have a source, and if it does have a source, check it yourself

[writing_essays]

I find it to be extremely useful and beneficial - in 20 years - I have only once read a wikipedia artlcle that I didn't agree with but they didn't lie about the facts - they just interpreted them in a very offensive way.

[Blitzkrieger]

Im an offensive way? What do you mean? Its written in encyclopedia style.

[writing_essays]

@Blitzkrieger a muslim woman wrote about being persecuted for her non-compliance to islamic tradition in a book and a wikipedia article discussing the book accused her of "mocking muslims" which I thought was wrong - she was telling her own experiences in an honest way.

[Blitzkrieger]

Yeah thats whats bad about wikipedia. The interpretations of the editors of the articles are not always objective. The reader must read between the lines a lot.

[strateguy632]

So i once tried to add "the other side" to a certain topic "wikipedia information page" with footnote sources.

All i had to do was copy the "symbols " already there, for proper formatting, just replace instead of repeating, with the quotes.

Then i waited a few minutes to see what happened, hoping the footnotes protected the "undesirable " opinion.

Well you won't BELIEVE the bs on the "page history".

I added letters at 10:55 A. M. at 10:56am' some lady deleted the footnotes. 10:57am' a guy added "citation needed"... and at 10:57 the addition was "reverted due to no footnotes" UNBELIEVABLE.

so that is wikipedia for you. Hiding whatever undesirable side. OR quoting britanica "retreived a certain day" but not after the CORRECTION to the error in britanica!

[Gray_Wolf]

No it is not I heard its editable but it doesn't mean its wrong

[Krisztian]

half...

[dogfish]

no they have police