Is the reliability of Wikipedia.org "debatable" here?

[Noone_Special]

Just one point to remember… you can’t use Wikipedia as a reference, for a really simple reason: Regardless of the accuracy of the data you found there today, you have absolutely no idea what the very same entry will say a week from now, when your prof. (or whoever is rating your work) gets around to reading your paper…

It’s great as a pointer to where else to look, of course.

[II_Gyan_II]

@Noone Special

Regardless of the accuracy of the data you found there today, you have absolutely no idea what the very same entry will say a week from now, when your prof. (or whoever is rating your work) gets around to reading your paper…

Actually, no. It is a bit more cumbersome, though.

[BobLibDem]

I refuse to read any Wiki cites. It’s just too easy for the information to be written by someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, has an axe to grind, or is just a vandal. Maybe 95% is accurate, but I may not know if the article I’m reading is one of the 5%. At least Brittanica and other conventional encyclopedias have protocols for editing- until Wiki gets some I will not read it.

[Stentor_2.5]

@foolsguinea

Of course, one could argue that the** greatness** of Wikipedia is the eccentricity of its entries. Or is that Uncyclopedia?

Seriously, though, I think Wikipedia’s commitment to accuracy is underrated. Of course it’s not perfectly reliable. But then, no reference book is perfectly reliable & perfectly complete. Wikipedia is readily & quickly correctable. How many reference books can claim that?

I don’t mean that there’s a problem with having eccentric entries. I enjoy reading about extreme ironing as much as the next guy. I’m talking about when you have an entry on pigs, and half of the entry is devoted to why they are considered unclean under Jewish and Muslim dietary law. Factually accurate, but also fairly eccentric.

[jshore]

I think there is a lot of valuable information on Wikipedia but one does have to be careful. For example, on some topics with a political component (two that I have heard about being an entry on climate change and an entry on John Lott), there have been wars of back-and-forth changes made by people. [In Lott’s case, he was apparently trying to edit his entry to take out negative statements made about him in it.]

[tomndebb]

Having read the Wiki article, I wonder how Lockean feels about Lott, now. He’d need a whole new paradigm to defend Lott, Lockean being a trained statistician and all.

[Alien]

I find Wikipedia fairly accurate. Occasionally I find errors in articles of little interest to other contributors, or in pages written by fanboys. I’m even signed up, though i rarely submit anything (what do I know ).

There’s a link at the top of every article leading to the community discussion page of the article. Very nice. Wikipedia also stores every revision of a page so you can go back and see what’s been changed, and by who (somewhat).