I don't understand the hate for Wikipedia.org

It's true that the information can be edited, but a lot of what is on Wikipedia is true. Take the BioShock 2 game for example, it explains the plot about it and everything on there about it is true.

What is your opinion on this and why do people hate Wikipedia?

Sure it may be good for a few quick facts and light information on a topic, but it certainly isn't the be all and end all.

teachers find it unrealiable, i find it awesome :)

Sure it may be good for a few quick facts and light information on a topic, but it certainly isn't the be all and end all.

dazman31

I remember hearing in a couple places that Wikipedia is just as accurate (and inaccurate, for that matter) as the Encyclopedia Britannica. So, basically...yeah, you can't believe everything you read, but I'm thinking it's actually a lot more reliable than many people give it credit for. Either that or Britannica is a heapa****.

i only know teachers who hate it

Wikipedia is a great resource for information. Yes, anyone can edit it, but it's policed by its users pretty well, and much of the information is back by sources. If I were doing something for school it wouldn't be my only source of info but I would use it as a starting point.

for me it's awesome. don't care who hates it and why, but it's by far the most informative source on the net.

It is a fantastic source for quick reference, but it shouldn't be used as a formal reliable source for research and school work. However, there are links at the bottom of the page where most of the info from Wikipedia comes from that can be used as a reliable source. There have been many studies conducted over the comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia has 4 errors for every 3 errors Encyclopedia Britannica has. Take that as you like.stanleycup98

[QUOTE="stanleycup98"]It is a fantastic source for quick reference, but it shouldn't be used as a formal reliable source for research and school work. However, there are links at the bottom of the page where most of the info from Wikipedia comes from that can be used as a reliable source. There have been many studies conducted over the comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia has 4 errors for every 3 errors Encyclopedia Britannica has. Take that as you like.l4dak47

every time i've had a teacher give me an assignment they always say get __ sources but DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA. i think there must have been some crappy news story about how wikipedia is for crackheads like 5 years ago and all my technologically ignorant centenarian teachers think its true.

Wikipedia is amazing.

I love wikipedia, but its basically common knowlage that it can sometimes be a bad source for information, and it can sometimes be really disturbing, such as the time when somebody edited the Ace Ventura page, god that ruined a lot of my childhood memories....

every time i've had a teacher give me an assignment they always say get __ sources but DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA. i think there must have been some crappy news story about how wikipedia is for crackheads like 5 years ago and all my technologically ignorant centenarian teachers think its true.

Jph625

Of course they don't have to know that you use Wikipedia.

It is a fantastic source for quick reference, but it shouldn't be used as a formal reliable source for research and school work. However, there are links at the bottom of the page where most of the info from Wikipedia comes from that can be used as a reliable source. There have been many studies conducted over the comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia has 4 errors for every 3 errors Encyclopedia Britannica has. Take that as you like.stanleycup98

I agree.. The claim that students should "never" use it is ridiculous.. Its a great stepping stone in finding reliable first and secondary sources, you should never cite it or use information directly from the site for a paper.. What it should be used for is finding reliable sources in their bibliography on the site...

It's loved by those who understand the web and hated by those who don't. It tends to be misrepresented by the mainstream media as they are still struggling to understand the web, hence some of their idiotic ideas about web services.

Can't count it as a credible source reallyStrider_91

For videogames, movies, hobbies and suchit's ok but for important info i really prefer to find a book, history is already censoredin books why should i believe many of the "theories" the users write onwikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_Top#Careerlulz

For videogames, movies, hobbies and suchit's ok but for important info i really prefer to find a book, history is already censoredin books why should i believe many of the "theories" the users write onwikipedia.

Dudewrsmygame

... Uhh... What do you mean by that? That History is censored in books.. Please do tell.

Teachers just hate it, because it makes it to easy for the students :Pidk761

Some of my professors use it frequently.

Too many forget that a good article sources almost everything they sate. So I don't see how it's "unreliable" if you check them.Ringx55

This is true. Always check the citations, if you want to learn about something important.

I mean, it's not like it's even hard to do. They're all at the bottom of the page.

I like to use it too, but they do make a lot of mistakes sadly.

It's true that the information can be edited, but a lot of what is on Wikipedia is true. Take the BioShock 2 game for example, it explains the plot about it and everything on there about it is true.

What is your opinion on this and why do people hate Wikipedia?

UltimateRAGEX

Wiki is okay with me...it's not too difficult to spot the obvious wrong stuff (lack of citations or invalid citations).

Sometimes the Wiki staff does catch and remove questionable material.

Teachers just hate it, because it makes it to easy for the students :Pidk761

Not everything is accurate, but the vast majority of it is. Important articles are closely moderated.

The only time I really ever question the accuracy of information is when there's no citation.

You can't always consider wiki to be relaible. sure its great for a starting point for a subject. but it should never be used entirly for school and work. I know some articals that are complitly bais. (And no one gives a **** about it.) Just because an artical has citations dosn't mean that it's reliable. IE blogs, random websites. It's best to find information on your own. Most of the authors are annomious and don't have a shed of chreidably. NO the bots aren't flawless.

i like wiki's evil brother :lol: that site cracks me up