• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

  • Total voters
    58
It is mostly reliable.
 
bhkad said:
It is mostly reliable.
Click to expand...

That's actually a funny sentence when you break it down. Mostly reliable is accurate, but it brings into question the value of something that is "mostly reliable".

For some things, that's totally unacceptable. For example, would you get on an airplane that was labeled "mostly reliable"?

I sure wouldn't. :lol:

Essentially, for serious matters, "mostly reliable" just ain't good enough. For inconsequential things, it's acceptable, but not preferred.
 
Can be if used correctly

I really try not to use Wikipedia as the final say when I do personal research online, but I sometimes give in.

I don't believe it in itself is always credible, but often times you can be directed in the right direction of finding the right answer online by simply verifying what it already says.

For instance, if I wanted to look up Newton's Second Law (Force = mass * acceleration), I can look it up on wikipedia, see what it says and from there I can look at other sites to see if it's right. Where as if I knew nothing about the topic I'd have to wander the internet to figure out what I'm looking for. Maybe not the best example, but I hope you get my point.
 
Depends Chelle.
Don't quote unless its source is cited. Verify the source.
If in doubt cross reference with Snopes.
 
EgoffTib said:
You realize that they have a large amount of paid employees who monitor changes to articles, right?
Click to expand...

There is also a large amount of paid employees who work in Congress, it doesn't mean they do their job well.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Well?


Yes
No
Other


Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Citing Wikipedia in HS and undergraduate level courses is acceptable. It will get you bombed out of graduate classes.

However...what is 'reliable'? Most news sources are as slanted and biased as the information put into Wikipedia. Generally, if the information is in Wikipedia it can be sourced.
 
I say: other. I know that the entries entered by me or my friends are not to be trusted.
 
VanceMack said:
Citing Wikipedia in HS and undergraduate level courses is acceptable. It will get you bombed out of graduate classes.
Click to expand...

Not really. Primary and secondary schools across the country are generally rebelling against Wikipedia, and rightly so. Also, I cannot really think of the last time any of my college professors would allow Wikipedia entries.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Depends Chelle.
Don't quote unless its source is cited. Verify the source.
If in doubt cross reference with Snopes.
Click to expand...

Hiya Alvin. :mrgreen:

I mostly use it as a starting point to look up general information, but I rarely use it as a source for anything of importance and I never cite information from it when I want to present factual evidence. ;)
 
i think wiki is pretty good at stopping vandalism, i once wrote an article about my friends nose, it only lasted 10 minutes, but it was pretty damn funny:lol:
 
Fiddytree said:
Not really. Primary and secondary schools across the country are generally rebelling against Wikipedia, and rightly so. Also, I cannot really think of the last time any of my college professors would allow Wikipedia entries.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I know of some that do...again...provided that they can demonstrate that the Wikipedia article is properly sourced and cited.

I dont really know how anyone can rebel against Wikipedia. Especially since it is such a commonly used source of data. If people completely discount wikipedia then they for sure ought to eliminate any and all periodical references due to bias. And journal articles also dont pass the non-bias test as 'peer reviewed' simnply means the author got a handful of like minded 'experts' to sanction their comments...

Come to think of it...I cant recall a text book (non math or stats related) that has not been written without some sort of slant or bias.
 
VanceMack said:
Perhaps. I know of some that do...again...provided that they can demonstrate that the Wikipedia article is properly sourced and cited.

I dont really know how anyone can rebel against Wikipedia. Especially since it is such a commonly used source of data. If people completely discount wikipedia then they for sure ought to eliminate any and all periodical references due to bias. And journal articles also dont pass the non-bias test as 'peer reviewed' simnply means the author got a handful of like minded 'experts' to sanction their comments...

Come to think of it...I cant recall a text book (non math or stats related) that has not been written without some sort of slant or bias.
Click to expand...

It is not that there is a bias, it is that it is an educated and specialized consensus among academic peers rather than being written by any schmuck with a keyboard.
 
I think it's an accurate source to learn from, particularly on non-debatable historical subjects, but it shouldn't be used as a source academically.
 
Fiddytree said:
It is not that there is a bias, it is that it is an educated and specialized consensus among academic peers rather than being written by any schmuck with a keyboard.
Click to expand...

No...they are written by EDUCATED schmucks with a keyboard. No...scratch that...they are written by undergrad students and grad students FOR the educated schmucks...

Im not disagreeing its not vulnerable and only cited commentary should be included.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
There is also a large amount of paid employees who work in Congress, it doesn't mean they do their job well.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about Congress, I'm talking about the guys at Wikipedia who do a fine job of keeping the site accurate.
 
VanceMack said:
No...they are written by EDUCATED schmucks with a keyboard. No...scratch that...they are written by undergrad students and grad students FOR the educated schmucks...

Im not disagreeing its not vulnerable and only cited commentary should be included.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are not experts in their fields writing these entries.
 
Fiddytree said:
A lot of people are not experts in their fields writing these entries.
Click to expand...

No argument. Just saying...many 'experts' write journal articles with research designed to support their arguments. Yes...I know college professors too.
 
I'm not actually sure as to the precise workings of a Wiki article.

I assume some methods of preventing vandalism are in place, to prevent the addition of statements that skew the attempted accuracy.
 
I voted yes, with reservations. It's only reliable if you use it properly.

It's useful because it gives you leads to further sources and links to them. I think it is less reliable when you are dealing with more esoteric subjects. The contributors to Wikipedia are then a pretty small bunch and you need to double-check even more carefully for bias. Of course, I expect bias, we're only human, but the more opinions you get the more this bias tends to even out.

I love Wiki like I love my dog. They can both bite on occasion though!
 
It use to be horrible - and some areas still are.
They've really tightened up the reigns on what can be changed and so forth. . . but there's still room for a lot of improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom