How Reliable is Wikipedia? (recall, philosophy, science)

[Sunstone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/we.../04seelye.html

Originally Posted by New York Times

Jessica Baumgart, a news researcher at Harvard University, wrote that there were librarians voluntarily working behind the scenes to check information on Wikipedia. "But, honestly," she added, "in some ways, we're just as fallible as everyone else in some areas because our own knowledge is limited and we can't possibly fact-check everything."

In an interview, she said that her rule of thumb was to double-check everything and to consider Wikipedia as only one source.

"Instead of figuring out how to 'fix' Wikipedia - something that cannot be done to our satisfaction," wrote Derek Willis, a research database manager at The Washington Post, who was speaking for himself and not The Post, "we should focus our energies on educating the Wikipedia users among our colleagues."

How reliable is Wikipedia?

[Terrywoodenpic]

As it relies on the public to creat enteries and edit... not very safe I should say.
not bad as source for other references.
It is already too big to be checkable.


Terry______________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

[Nehustan]

erm its great for a quick google, but as to reliability, hmmm... maybe about as reliable as a bus.

[michel]

I think I'd go along with:" In an interview, she said that her rule of thumb was to double-check everything and to consider Wikipedia as only one source."

At first, I never even noticed that wikepedia was editable; I must admit that once or twice, I have been tempted........

*Stop it you naughty naughty boy* slaps himself on the wrist for being so mischievious......

[Fluffy]

I cannot recall ever having seen an error on Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia to teach myself skills which involves 2 things: learning terms and understanding the subject. Understanding is based in logic so a mistake on this side of things is easy to spot whilst a incorrectly named concept can cause some confusion when used in conjucntion with other sites but, at the end of the day, is fairly irrelevant since it will remain internally consistent.

I would not advise using Wikipedia as a site for researching factual evidence which does not rely on logic for the most part ie history or the news. You will be almost totally safe as long as you stick with philosophy, computing and the sciences.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I cannot recall ever having seen an error on Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia to teach myself skills which involves 2 things: learning terms and understanding the subject. Understanding is based in logic so a mistake on this side of things is easy to spot whilst a incorrectly named concept can cause some confusion when used in conjucntion with other sites but, at the end of the day, is fairly irrelevant since it will remain internally consistent.

I would not advise using Wikipedia as a site for researching factual evidence which does not rely on logic for the most part ie history or the news. You will be almost totally safe as long as you stick with philosophy, computing and the sciences.

If you want reliable sites, follow Deut around on the forum, and bookmark his links.

[Fluffy]

If you want reliable sites, follow Deut around on the forum, and bookmark his links.[img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Lol that is very true. However, Wikis have something that other sites do not, a truly selfless ethos. Millions of people, constantly improving one another's work and with no personal motivation beyond the need to educate others. This is possibly one of the best things to come out of the internet.

I agree fluffy. I consider, do I go check my 20 year old encyclopedias or hit Wiki to get the hang of something. Not a big decision. Armed with a couple of tidbits from Wiki, I then tend to track my prey from there. Wiki, is ususally one of the first stops. Great for philosophy and religious crap. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

To a certain extent. I guess the difference I am trying to put forward is that Wikis are great if you wish to gain an indepth understanding of, for example, rationalism but become much less useful if you wish to look up the date of the Great Schism.

[Shadow Wolf]

The information I have dug up on Wikipedia has been good, and consistent with other sources. Some of the topics I have looked up were The Lake Bodom murders, which was consistent with several other sites; the death-metal group Children of Bodom, and I can assure everyone the information on them on Wiki is accurate; and a few other things that were ok.

[Quiddity]

It's as reliable as my understanding of the topic.

~Victor

[QTpi]

I checked out Wikipedia a while ago, but I found quite a few errors and haven't been back since. Of course I was only investigating one area (science). Other areas may be better.