COMMENTS:
Voted : With a few pinches of salt (trust but verify)
It actually should not be trusted, simply by the method it uses to collect data. I have found several "errors", which is a polite way of saying lies. Especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as religion, nationalism, ethnicism, politics etc, don't go there or check other sources as well. If you google the web you will find accusations that Muslims have infiltrated it and also that Jews have infiltrated it.
Sabotage has become so bad on these topics that Wikipedia has had to put "locks" on to prevent entry.
Generally speaking it is trustworthy. It isn't perfect certainly, but on most matters it is accurate.
But you'll find that on here a source is only good when it presents what people want to hear. For instance, wikipedia reports that global warming is 100% manmade, then it is the most accurate source ever found. It reports that after strict gun control laws were put in place crime increased across the board and it's full of neo-con lies!!! Same with the BBC, CNN, Reuters, etc.
Very true Jinn. There will always be disputes on those sensitive topics, and those "locks" you say... they had to do that with elephants when Stephen Colbert metioned it on his show. I'm mainly talking about factual scientific things, and not so much disputed topics. I come to those conclusions myself.
I sometimes use it as a starting point and then I'll verify any information I find with other sources.
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone from the ignorant to someone who wants to make up any old bollocks. Although the latter is very rare.
Yeah, same as LSD I'm mainly talking about factual scientific things, and general topics such as music sport etc, too.
It can be a good initial source to identify topics for further research, but should not be used as a citable reference.
Often, the references (or citations) to the article are better.
How can it be? You should only trust what you hear from Karl Rove and the Republican Party.
Voted : With a few pinches of salt (trust but verify)
Same as with any other source.
I wouldn't trust it as a citable source. I have to agree with MrFiddle; "Often, the references (or citations) to the article are better"
|
