How much do you rely on WikiPedia?

[Packy]

Hi, everyone! It may seem like the "Cliffs Notes" of all those complex issues, but what the heck--it's Simpified, without being dumbed down too much. That means a lot, to me. Do you folks refer to it often,or not? I sense that it is very balanced & accurate, in general.

[redfox]

I like it for quick bios, & especially for pop culture info. I don't trust it for critical info.

[onlinemoniker]

I do the exact opposite of Redfox. I trust it for historical/serious info but not anything that's pop culture. Seriously, what kind of person is going to purposefully inaccurately edit the page on Svetambara monks? Someone who couldn't defend his dissertation?

But the Katy Perry page? That's a different story...

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think it's not bad. But controversial pages will be edited all the time and with bias (ie don't go to it for information on scientology as the scientologists are editing it all day long). But most pages aren't bad. I use it for an overview. Plus it's weird to imagine I'm using it to research controversial stuff (yes, yes, I base my politics on wikepedia >8) ) rather than say the categorization of a plant, or just a quick overview of some thinker or idea I'd never heard of before (and it will mostly give the gist - more would require actual reading).

The idea that I should trust any publication as an absolutely authoritative source seems kinda strange in this day and age. I'm alright with expert opinions, but there's a lot of bias built into most institutions in the modern world (which are mostly collapsing at this point anyway).

[redfox]

Hah! I guess I don't much care about accuracy regarding pop culture, I use it to find out who folks like Katy Perry are. For serious research, Google scholar.

[onlinemoniker]

Never heard of Google Scholar. I will look of it.

I have heard of Katy Perry, though.

[catherine]

I think Wikipedia is a great example of how the commons can be executed for everyone's benefit. I use it ALL the time to get quick information on a huge variety of stuff. Of course, if I want/need more information I'll go to other resources, but I probably look up different topics about twice a day.

[ApatheticNoMore]

If I wanted more information I'd read a book.

[Miss Cellane]

I think it is useful as a starting point and to get an overview of a subject. For pop culture stuff, it's still useful, but can be inaccurate.

And if you don't think older information can be controversial, there was a time when the pages about Shakespeare and who really wrote his plays were being edited almost daily. I think a couple of contributors were having a battle over the subject.

There are inaccuracies on pages of all types--I was quite startled to read one page on a crocheting topic, which wasn't entirely wrong, but had a very limited view of the subject, and possibly misuse of a trademarked name. And I've now seen that exact same text on several other sites. Which makes me wonder if everyone is copying from WikiPedia, or if someone put plagiarized copy up on the Wiki.

So, good starting place, but I'd double check the facts if you are looking for anything more than a brief, general introduction to a subject.

When I was a teaching assistant teaching Freshman English at a university, I had to tell the students that while they could use Wikipedia to help them get a start on their research papers, it was not considered a valid source for academic research. And I had to put that in in bold, all caps type on the paper topic handout sheet, because otherwise, I'd get papers based almost entirely on Wikipedia.

[razz]

I agree with Miss Cellane's post so use it for a starting point but don't rely on it. EG - yesterday, I needed some more info on Kafka's Metamorphisis as I had attended a play in Toronto based on his writing and wanted to see how the play and the original story related. Good for that as a start.

[SteveinMN]

Like several others, Wikipedia is a starting point for me. Oftentimes, it's enough ("Who produced that album?" "What is that food and how do you cook it?"). More knowledge requires more searching.

One neat feature of my chosen Web search engine, DuckDuckGo, is that you can initiate a Wikipedia search from a browser's search field by typing in the search terms and a !w . It takes you right to the applicable Wikipedia entry. OT, but there are other "bangs" which function as shortcuts.

[ToomuchStuff]

Once in a great while it will come up in general searches. I know it isn't always accurate, due to one companies CEO, kept editing their page, trying to rewrite history (to the point of banning). Not really different then regular encyclopedia's (some things are learned later, others, the victor writes the history, when it normally is somewhere in the middle).

[Gardenarian]

I use it quite a bit. Although the instructors at my college will not accept it as a resource, studies have shown that Wikipedia is more accurate overall than most printed sources.
The links and sources provided are often excellent.
I use it often enough that I make frequent donations.

[jp1]

Like others I use it as a quick "who did what?" source. If it's something I am seriously interested in it's just a good starting point. I wouldn't write a research paper based off of it but if I want to quickly find out who so and so is or what the difference is between a universal electric motor and a series wound motor, etc, it is a great first source.

[AmeliaJane]

I find it very handy for genre reading-related topics...for instance if I want to figure out what is the first book in an author's series, or if he or she writes several series, what books belong to each.

[Packy]

I read it a lot--to get that overview. Yes, some articles are subjectively written, particularly about celebrities. I can tell you that some entries about a particular subject that I do have prior knowledge of, that is based upon my personal experience, have minor inaccuracies. So, it might be wise to do more research about a subject that means a lot to you after you check Wikpedia.

[herbgeek]

I use it while I'm on conference calls to look up technical information if the discussion is over my head, or just to try and figure out what the acronyms being used stand for.

[Packy]

One other thing---they occasionally have fundraising to benefit Wikipedia. I just wonder if they really, really NEED the Money, or if they' would just like to have it? My skepticism is based on this:I know of a least one organization that has lots of money coming in, but so far, after many, many bountiful years, no cure has been found for disease X. In fact, I don't think researchers have even found the cause. And, if they did, here would be no further need for the Disease X Foundation. So maybe they are overfunded. Sorry if I strayed off-topic.

[Flic]

Too much! But I find if you check the sources you can usually get a pretty good idea of how reliable the info is.

[Spartana]

Hi, everyone! It may seem like the "Cliffs Notes" of all those complex issues, but what the heck--it's Simpified, without being dumbed down too much. That means a lot, to me. Do you folks refer to it often,or not? I sense that it is very balanced & accurate, in general.I use it as a general "go to" place for basic info on pretty much everything. I find most of it be fairly accurate but have seen some slip-ups on occasion (usually on a subject I am pretty familiar with). But the slip-ups have been minor and didn't seem to take away from the overall contents accuracy.

[jp1]

I use it while I'm on conference calls to look up technical information if the discussion is over my head, or just to try and figure out what the acronyms being used stand for.

I have a friend who used to work in the same department as me writing technology errors & omissions insurance. She confessed to me that when she first got the job she was nervous about people auditing her files and second guessing her judgement about accounts so she would print out the Wikipedia page for the type of business the account was and put it in the file so that anyone looking would assume that she really knew what she was doing.

[Gardenarian]

Lately I have been using reddit (http://www.reddit.com/) a lot. There are a lot of idiots on there, but you certainly get a wide array of opinions on just about anything.

Wikipedia will give me the facts about Kestone XL; reddit gives me a whole lot of commentary.

I don't post much on reddit - I feel like the natives are a little hostile.

[JWtravels]

It is very useful, I use it all the time for looking up plants, companies, political beliefs, religious beliefs, and most anything else you can think of. Even if the bias of the writer comes out and is negative on the subject I am looking into, I at least have a basic knowledge of what the subject is all about and can further my research from there. Controversial topics or persons will obviously be written from the standpoint of the general population or mainstream belief, you won't get an alternative look. I like Wikipedia just because it's a place where you can get an overview of a certain subject, it's odd that there's nowhere else you can get that online