I use to hate to use wiki-leaks or even go there for fear it was wrong.
Now when you do reserch it is about the only quick place you can go.
Have you used and relied upon wiki-leaks in the past and been proven wrong?
I wasn’t aware that WL had replaced all other knowledge on the net.
WP, now…
“used” wikileaks?
Leaks, by their nature, are not FACTS. They are “stuff people said.”
So far as I have heard, nothing that wikileaks has posted which they claimed were actual emails or whatever, were not; however how they and others have INTERPRETED what they posted, HAS been the source of a ton of falsehoods.
Example: a while back, they posted emails showing that behind the scenes, various diplomats weren’t as polite about each other as they were in public. That caused an uproar amongst the people who never got an education in the history of international diplomatic relations, and all sorts of ongoing negotiations were temporarily disrupted.
However, since anyone who pays attention and studies, knows that diplomats ALWAYS act nice in public, and say other stuff in private, the whole kerfuffle was closer to being the CREATION of falsehoods in the world, than it was to bringing “truth.”
Similarly, when WL revealed that various allies were spying on each other, a huge uproar took place, and again, there were lots of international messes created. However, since allies have ALWAYS spied on each other, it was again less of a “truth creating” set of leaks, than it was an annoyance and a disruption of normal international behaviors.
That’s the trouble with ALL leaks, however well intended. They almost never come out WITH COMPLETE CONTEXT included, so people leap to erroneous conclusions, and quite often, the very scalawags who every idealist hopes will be defeated by Truth, actually use the leaks to further their nefarious, selfish and often destructive agendas.
In short, you really need to know a LOT, if you want to “use” things you find posted on Wikileaks or the like.
In case it’s not clear with the posts above, it appears you are confusing Wikipedia with Wikileaks.
Reported for move to IMHO.
Further, a “wiki” is a type of collaborative, user-editable website. There are many wikis out there, some with the “wiki” or “wik” in their name being used to identify them as this type of editable website.
Moderator Action
Since the OP is seeking personal experiences of dopers with wiki-factuality, let’s move this to IMHO (from GQ).
I sincerely hope this is the case. Otherwise, I’m wondering what kind of “reserch” the OP is doing.
Sorry, I meant wikipedia :smack:
Well, then… Wikipedia has proven itself to be 106.2% correct by averaging the opinions of the one-tenth of editors who guard most of the entries against changes by anyone else. So you’re safe.
You’ll never know for certain. People with security clearances aren’t allowed to read leaks.
The secret to using Wikipedia effectively is to check the sources of the information you are researching. I use it all the time to obtain quick answers, but when I need to verify that the information is correct, I always look at the footnotes and go to the original sources.
What type of information are you researching for which Wikipedia is the only source? For most general information that isn’t highly controversial, a Google search will take you to the most appropriate source.
“Wiki-leaks” are what I call it when I piss out in the desert.
Indeed. For most general knowledge, it’s my first stop and I find it generally accurate. If anything looks off to me or if I need the information to post as a citation to an online discussion, I dig down into the footnotes to give “harder” sources. I have occasionally found errors, like when I was researching my neighborhood, and found several incorrect “facts” about it, like the borders, or a caption on a photo, but I corrected that and provided a link to an official City of Chicago source.
For the most part, I find Wikipedia fine as a general overview of the topic you are researching.
Or when I’m trying to get to the center of a tootsie pop. Wait, that’s “licky weeks”.
Are you saying that wiki is wacky with woo?
Thank you kindly and I will try harder to back up what I say with google … I hate to say ‘but’, but wikipedia is always first and on top and I don’t really know what those other links are going to be worth reading. I might be an old man, but I still don’t have a lot of time to waste.
I like that new feature of underlining a word in your post or another members post that takes you to google to see what that word means. I don’t know what happened to that red line that tells me I have spelled something wrong.
Probably just a click away, but I’m too busy today. 
There can be an issue with circular references on Wikipedia. Wiki will state a fact, incorrectly and with no cite, an external writer will pick up the erroneous fact and publish it in an article, Wikipedia will then cite the article for its original fact. It is not common, but it has happened, and it can be very difficult to fix.
You just have to remember that on wikipedia people write and edit articles about things that they’re interested in. If nobody else is interested in modern Hungarian neo-paganism, or if the only people interested in modern Hungarian neo-paganism are Hungarian neo-pagans, then the article about modern Hungarian neo-paganism will reflect their biases.
But this is inevitable. If you think the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica weren’t biased you’re fooling yourself. The Encyclopedia Britannica isn’t going to include an article on Hungarian neopaganism. So you pay your money and you take your chances.
I’ve corrected many pieces of misinformation on Wikipedia. If you see something that you know isn’t true you should edit the wiki and correct the erroneous information, making sure of course to cite reliable sources for your correction. Wikipedia relies on the vigilance and oversight of its users for the accuracy of its wikis.
If you are unsure of your information you can go to the Talk page of the wiki and discuss matters there with other wikipedia users.