Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 1, 2024, 9:53 am

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reliability of Wikipedia.
#1
Reliability of Wikipedia.
Quite often I hear the criticisms on Wikipedia and I think it is time to set the record straight:

Wikipedia has no more or less errors in its articles than any other mainstream Encyclopedia written on paper, as several tests have shown since 2005. Questioning the validity of a wiki article is good and healthy, but to think that for example Encyclopedia Brittanica is a better source is just as erroneous.

The fact is that sites like Wikipedia or books like EB, should only be used as a starting point. the strong-point of Wiki are in the sited references in the bottom of articles. They link to official scientific journals, articles by experts on the subject, critics of the subject, news articles, you name it. It also has the "See also" section that might help you find other articles with other off-site references.

Furthermore the admins of wikipedia are very good at spotting vandalism and correcting errors. Quite often within minutes faulty edits are reversed, as Richard Dawkins found out.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Reliability of Wikipedia. - by leo-rcc - April 8, 2009 at 1:02 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by marcel90 - April 8, 2009 at 1:20 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Tiberius - April 8, 2009 at 1:36 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by leo-rcc - April 8, 2009 at 2:29 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by fr0d0 - April 8, 2009 at 2:55 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 8, 2009 at 3:01 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by leo-rcc - April 8, 2009 at 3:14 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 8, 2009 at 4:14 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Meatball - April 9, 2009 at 4:57 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 11, 2009 at 3:47 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Meatball - April 12, 2009 at 4:22 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 12, 2009 at 5:25 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Meatball - April 12, 2009 at 9:11 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 13, 2009 at 2:39 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by leo-rcc - April 13, 2009 at 2:45 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 13, 2009 at 2:47 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by padraic - April 9, 2009 at 8:15 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by leo-rcc - April 10, 2009 at 2:55 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Overmars - April 12, 2009 at 3:37 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by leo-rcc - April 13, 2009 at 3:38 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 13, 2009 at 3:47 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Tiberius - April 13, 2009 at 2:12 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 13, 2009 at 2:36 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by padraic - April 13, 2009 at 7:49 pm
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 14, 2009 at 4:18 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by padraic - April 14, 2009 at 4:44 am
RE: Reliability of Wikipedia. - by Kyuuketsuki - April 14, 2009 at 7:06 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Good Wikipedia article on the History of Atheism. Jehanne 6 1683 April 5, 2017 at 12:45 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  Greatest Wikipedia page of all time? Mudhammam 11 1778 August 5, 2014 at 9:10 am
Last Post: ignoramus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)