Is wikipedia a reliable source?

[panfish5]

I always like to read random articles on wikipedia but every time I use it the thought that anybody can put what they want on it crosses my mind. So is wikipedia a reliable source or is it good for some research but not deep research?

[Kryten]

Hell no. The criteria for including something is that's it's citated from somewhere, not that there's real evidence for it. For example, say a scientific paper is printed, and a news article is written about it that is horribly wrong. Multiple other news articles repeat the massively incorrect views of the original article-the inaccurate information will end up being far more likely to end up on wikipedia.

It might seem a rather forced example, but anyone with any background in the sciences will tell you it happens maybe half the time the media decides to report on something.

[Dispatcher]

Take it with a grain of salt. I've found it to be a decent source of info but you should seek at least 2 other independent sources if possible. The idea with Wikipedia is that since the information is available to all, an "expert" can determine whether or not any entries are in error, and correct that; ad infinitum. Yet some articles have been in need of an "expert" for years, with nobody stepping in to make adjustments.

[Camacha]

It is true that anyone can change anything on Wikipedia. The thruth is that it is unlikely that you will encounter such an article . Even so, you should greet any and every source with a healthy dose of suspicion. In real life, people might tell you lies too. Always remember that no single source has the truth. Being curious and being critical are two sides of the same coin. Always keep asking.

[Specialist290]

By academic standards, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. The bibliography section that most pages have, however, is usually a good indicator for where you can start digging for them.

[Chrisd857]

I guess there are a lot of ways to look at this:

Is Encyclopedia Britannica reliable? Heck, is anything actually reliable? How can we be sure that we actually know anything about anything?

The general disclaimer explicitly tells us that Wikipedia is not reliable.

Some articles are absolute drivel, horribly unsourced, piles of promotional fluff -- while others are written by researchers in their field (I know this applies to some plants, and some lemurs), or are otherwise of decent quality and are probably as reliable as other works out there. Also, vandalism is either reverted quite quickly (~1 min), or can languish for up to several years.

Of course it isn't reliable! I mean, I got a message at least twice today that it was briefly unavailable; anything less than 99.99999% uptime is utterly unreliable.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Chrisd857
more

[Vanamonde]

The vast majority of Wikipedia content is valid. The problem is that there's no verification or threshold for submission, so that there's a tiny percentage which is utter nonsense, and there's no easy way to tell which is which. Which is why nothing reputable relies on Wikipedia.

[Camacha]

The vast majority of Wikipedia content is valid. The problem is that there's no verification or threshold for submission, so that there's a tiny percentage which is utter nonsense, and there's no easy way to tell which is which. Which is why nothing reputable relies on Wikipedia.

Funnily enough exactly the same goes for scientific research. Amongst the many hard working, honest men and women there are a couple of deviants that litterally make stuff up. And most of them probably get away with it.

On this side of the world there has been a bit of a riot about a number of reputable scientists that, in hindsight, were plain fraudsters. Note that I am not trying to discredit science in any way, I am just saying that you should be ever vigilant and critical. Do not take what anyone says for granted because they say it, accept it only because - and if - it makes sense.

[bsalis]

Reliable source is a relative term. Is Wikipedia more reliable compared to...

* What the taxi driver told you

* What some self-proclaimed expert you met at the pub said

* Your Uncle Bobs view of things

* What you saw on TV

* What you read on some blog on the internet

* What Kim Kardashian tweeted

[Godot]

By academic standards, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. The bibliography section that most pages have, however, is usually a good indicator for where you can start digging for them.

Exactly this.

It is definitely good enough to look up for first informations ...

but one should better not cite it as source in university or scientific papers

[Nuke]

when it comes right down to it, is any source of information reliable? i dont really trust anything unless i see it happen myself. there have been too many occasions where something i read in an academic book was blatantly wrong. i knew it was wrong and ive seen it be wrong. you want to know for sure, figure it out yourself, and if you are feeling lazy there is always wikipedia/the internet/the news/the government/other humans/the voices in your head.

[Lohan2008]

Wikipedia is ok for general information/ starting point.

You have to look into the sources quoted if you want to use info at university or for business.

[NASAFanboy]

Wikipedia?

100% reliable.

I've used it for years already, and not once has it ever failed me. Whenever I get a research assignment, Wikipedia is my first (And usually last) stop. Just don't tell my teachers.

It's just my opinion though. Not fact.

[lajoswinkler]

No, you can't trust it as you can trust scientific literature, but for important stuff, English Wikipedia is a very decent source, given that you check the sources (tiny numbers in brackets, ^[1]), too.

You also have to remember that the less important an article is, the greater the chances of bad info will be.

[Wesreidau]

A lot of this depends on what you're looking up. Do you want the atomic weight of boron? Wikipedia is perfectly fine. Do you want to know the impact of Faroe Island whaling on the global pilot whale population? Prepare to be assaulted with photographs of seas of blood while great beasts heave their entrails upon the sand or pictures of smiling buxom ideals of Aryan perfection presenting platters of steaks as big as your desk. Honestly, if you're of a critical mind there's nothing to fear with using Wikipedia. Just keep an eye on when you shouldn't use it.

[Beowolf]

Funnily enough exactly the same goes for scientific research. Amongst the many hard working, honest men and women there are a couple of deviants that litterally make stuff up. And most of them probably get away with it.

On this side of the world there has been a bit of a riot about a number of reputable scientists that, in hindsight, were plain fraudsters. Note that I am not trying to discredit science in any way, I am just saying that you should be ever vigilant and critical. Do not take what anyone says for granted because they say it, accept it only because - and if - it makes sense.

True. The whole point of the scientific method is to uncover cases of human error, wishful thinking and fraud. That's precisely why it was created. One also shouldn't believe "science news" in the media. They're reporting on "first results", but such results don't count until they've been independently confirmed. MOST exciting-sounding results can't be reproduced when others try the same experiment and never should have been reported as "news". But the media makes money from hits, not from accuracy.

I disagree with your last statement, however. Reality frequently doesn't make sense. See quantum mechanics and feathered dinosaurs, for example.

[rpayne88]

Its a good starting point for topics you are completely unfamiliar with. But DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES cite it in your paper (I'm assuming this is for school.) You can get topics out of the article and then research them individually using reputable sources.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Reliable source is a relative term. Is Wikipedia more reliable compared to...

* What the taxi driver told you

* What some self-proclaimed expert you met at the pub said

* Your Uncle Bobs view of things

* What you saw on TV

* What you read on some blog on the internet

* What Kim Kardashian tweeted

*Unless the taxi driver is a specialist in the topic.

*Yup

*Never trust an uncle spawned from the internet.

*Usually

*Unless it's Harv's dev blag

*...why?

Anything you see on Wikipedia that has not evidence elsewhere can and should be disregarded. Anything else [on Wikipedia] is almost always ok.

[Pigbear]

if you don't trust the article go to the sources section and read those, if they are inaccurate you will know.

[Mr. Entropy]

I'd say its a good starting point for research if you skip the article itself and look through the citations, but you should never have a Wikipedia url in a works cited page.

[SuperWeegee4000]

The thing is, people don't realize how much the content is regulated on Wikipedia. Not much gets by the moderation, they just don't do very thorough background checks.

[Rowsdower]

I'd say its a good starting point for research if you skip the article itself and look through the citations, but you should never have a Wikipedia url in a works cited page.

I went to college at a point where I cited Wikipedia like crazy and no one batted an eye. I don't think I could get away with that now.

[Drunkrobot]

Isn't some of the more, ah, shall we say, "polarizing" articles not as open to editing? Otherwise you might get things like "Barack Hussein Obama is a murdering terrorist Nazi" or "Margaret Thatcher was the Ice-maiden of Azgoth". All the time.

In my usage of the site, it has been a very useful tool, a good way to get the basics of any topic. It's up to you to go out and search for a more in-depth look into said topic.

[musketeer]

Isn't some of the more, ah, shall we say, "polarizing" articles not as open to editing? Otherwise you might get things like "Barack Hussein Obama is a murdering terrorist Nazi" or "Margaret Thatcher was the Ice-maiden of Azgoth". All the time.

In my usage of the site, it has been a very useful tool, a good way to get the basics of any topic. It's up to you to go out and search for a more in-depth look into said topic.

I would agree exactly. Articles are moderated, and ridiculous stuff is removed relatively quickly, but specifics of a topic can be missed. Using Wikipedia as a source of main dates, names and locations is good, but other sources should be used for more detail than that.

[Jim DiGriz]

Contentious articles in very small niches can be extremely bad. Some of the technical diving articles are written by trolls and basically flame bait, and its very difficult to go through their moderation process to carefully document the inaccuracies and get them removed, so nobody does it because they have lives. For stuff that isn't contentious at all, and where people have taken the time to write up good articles it can be pretty good, and more information that I'm usually looking for. Even for contentious articles, that have gotten enough attention to get moderated and fixed, if you know how to read defensively, you can usually get a lot farther a lot faster when starting from zero on the issue. But making up your mind on something contentious (monetary policy, global warming, or government socialized health insurance) by just using wikipedia is a pretty bad idea.