Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Is the information on Wikipedia accurate? Is it reliable? etc . . .
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How reliable is Wikipedia?
- Thread starter Biblestudent_007
- Start date
Tis generally pretty good in things I'm familiar with.
When you smell controversy, check out arguments in the discussion tab.
This will guide in doing a little research.
Other advantages....more articles & greater accuracy than: Conservapedia, Uncyclopedia
But here is the ultimate authority.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_reliability
When you smell controversy, check out arguments in the discussion tab.
This will guide in doing a little research.
Other advantages....more articles & greater accuracy than: Conservapedia, Uncyclopedia
But here is the ultimate authority.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_reliability
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Depends entirely upon what you are using it for.
Most articles on Wikipedia are referenced.
A general rule of thumb is that the more references a article has, the more reliable the article is.
However, you still need to check on the references to make sure they are good references.
aindiachai
New Member
Wikipedia has continually been found to be about as accurate as any other standard encyclopedia. I can't post links yet, but if you google reliability of wikipedia you will quickly find published results.
I think that one of the best things about Wikipedia is its "Talk" pages. Unlike a paper encyclopedia where you just get the final article and nothing else, Wikipedia lets you see the discussion that goes into the final product.
I occasionally see things in an article that don't seem right, but when this happens, I'm able to go into the "Talk" page, see the argument for why the article was written the way it was (and often, an argument for why it should be written some other way as well) and make my own assessment of it.
In that regard, I think Wikipedia is pretty reliable. It doesn't always get things right, but when it does get things wrong, it's better at signalling this to the reader than just about any traditional publication.
the irony?
Photonic
Ad astra!
outhouse
Atheistically
It is pretty dang accurate
we had a bozo come in here and try and change and edit wiki so he could help prove his version of the garden of eden and make evidence fit.
they shut that joker down at every turn.
with that said you should know the material going in and get other refferences when possible.
dont like it try and change it if you can. Youi had better have real material or you will be shut down
we had a bozo come in here and try and change and edit wiki so he could help prove his version of the garden of eden and make evidence fit.
they shut that joker down at every turn.
with that said you should know the material going in and get other refferences when possible.
dont like it try and change it if you can. Youi had better have real material or you will be shut down
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Not as bad as what many people think it is. Really all you have to do is check which articles cite their sources, and check to see that the sources are credible. Actually I have found Wiki to be a great starting place for gathering info and resources when writing college papers.