I like quite a bit, and I think people should give it more credit. Unless you're looking for highly specialized scientific information, it's actually a pretty good source.
I like quite a bit, people should give it more credit. Unless you're looking for highly specialized scientific information, it's actually a pretty good source.
I think people don't realize that it isn't just literally people typing whatever they want into articles. You actually have to do it in a somewhat unbiased fashion and you need to supply a reliable source.
The librarian at my school is always over my shoulder telling me not to use it. I'm reading an article about some mathematical algorithm, and she's telling me to use Britannica or something. Most people who don't like it just have misconceptions about it.
And I don't understand why people call it Wik - UH - pedia.
I use it for entertainment purposes, I search through things that I like and read about them.
Yandere
Same here. I wouldn't use it for a research paper (in fact, I recently made a research paper about some of the bias in Wikipedia), but I still like to learn some interesting facts from time to time. Keeps me interested in the present.
I love it. The project itself is genius. I don't understand why a lot of teachers hate it. When there is a fact, there is usually a source to prove it. It's actually apart of the site's rules to provide sources or references.
I have an account on Wikipedia and I love editing articles.:D
I use it for things like films and games. But I never use it for research. That is because when I looked up John McCain it said that he used to stand up to others who were being bullied in the Navy. So I checked the source and there was this entry recorded about how some sailor was being bullied and McCain stood up for him and gave the bully a single look with his glaring eyes to make him leave - the moral is, just because it has a source, doesn't mean its true.
The librarian at my school is always over my shoulder telling me not to use it. I'm reading an article about some mathematical algorithm, and she's telling me to use Britannica or something. Most people who don't like it just have misconceptions about it.
And I don't understand why people call it Wik - UH - pedia.
NaiveChild
Yeah, I don't understand why people pronounce it like that either.
It's as good as any other source of information the human species has to offer. IF anyone really believes humans deal in exact truths.. then they are the real fools. Most of what we think we know, is really not what it is at all. But as long as enough people believe in something.. it's really irrelevant what the truth is to begin with.
Couldn't live without it. It's not always 100% accurate, but it's a very convenient source for the sort of random information I find myself needing on a daily basis.
I notice that they have a very strange set of priorities in terms of which articles to put the most effort into, though. For example, their article on Half-Life the videogame is twice as long as their article on Half-Life the scientific function of the exponential decay of radioactive material. Not a serious issue, but it really lets you know what kind of people keep the place the way it is :P
Overall, it's a pretty good information source as long as you're smart enough to check the sources, use common sense, and confirm it with something else if you're using it for anything serious.
I don't mind it. I just think sometimes people rely on it too much. Although sometimes it proves to be a helpful source, it's actually not ALWAYS a valid one. Anyone can put anything they want to up there...so there is a good chance of something being wrong, either untentionally or not.
I don't mind it. I just think sometimes people rely on it too much. Although sometimes it proves to be a helpful source, it's actually not ALWAYS a valid one. Anyone can put anything they want to up there...so there is a good chance of something being wrong, either untentionally or not.
Presea33
If you do put something inaccurate up, it will probably be removed. It's not just a free-for-all.
I don't mind it. I just think sometimes people rely on it too much. Although sometimes it proves to be a helpful source, it's actually not ALWAYS a valid one. Anyone can put anything they want to up there...so there is a good chance of something being wrong, either untentionally or not.
Cherokee_Jack
If you do put something inaccurate up, it will probably be removed. It's not just a free-for-all. You can cite sources that may seem real though and they'll be accepted when they're actually fake. Did u see my previous post?
I don't mind it. I just think sometimes people rely on it too much. Although sometimes it proves to be a helpful source, it's actually not ALWAYS a valid one. Anyone can put anything they want to up there...so there is a good chance of something being wrong, either untentionally or not.
biggest_loser
If you do put something inaccurate up, it will probably be removed. It's not just a free-for-all. You can cite sources that may seem real though and they'll be accepted when they're actually fake. Did u see my previous post?
Yes, I read your post. I know the sourcing isn't always correct.
Still, some people have the idea that anyone can post anything and it will stay there, which is wrong.
I'am actually surprised on how accurate Wikipedia actually is and I think it's the best thing on the Web along with Google and Youtube. The amount of knowledge in that website is bar none and I use it on a daily basis. Also it's good at keeping bad updates away and insanely fast on updating when something happens.
Don't use it as an infallible source (so not as a formal source... ever), but the fact that a friend of mine randomly put curse words in a few different articles and they stayed for a couple weeks always makes me question the information I find. Unless its about something boring, that people don't even bother messing up.
Log in to comment