Antiderivative
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 791
- Reaction score
- 334
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It certainly is enough to get started but it's not a serious source of information. It should be used more as a directory to find the actual source rather than the source itself.
Amazingly enough, there are other sites out there which can and should be used instead of Wiki:
Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia
World Book
A study was conducted by Nature in 2005 that showed Wiki's accuracy is comparable to that of Britannica. Actually, a plethora of studies have been conducted on the reliability of Wiki that there is even a Wiki page on it....lol.
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.htmlJimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
UPDATE: see details of how the data were collected for this article in the supplementary information.
UPDATE 2 (28 March 2006). The results reported in this news story and their interpretation have been disputed by Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nature responded to these objections .
One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource.
Nonetheless, I agree with you. I view Wiki as a great platform to use, but not necessarily an authority of knowledge.
Last edited: