Why wikipedia cannot be trusted

[IronWolf]

No, it isn't. Its on the internet, so you can't believe it!!

Doh! My head is spinning! I just don't know what to believe!

 

[Crothian]

I love a good catch 22

 

[Psionicist]

Check the history. It previously said "was belived". Just because some nuthead changed a word on one article out of around 400 000 doesn't invalidate the whole site. There are lots of very good and correct articles on wikipedia. If you find an error, you can change it back to how it was previously. Wikipedia is a very good resource for precisely this reason. What one can write, many can review - and fix.

If you truly belive a site is not worth reading because a single mistake, stop reading ENWorld, because I'm pretty sure there's an error somewhere.

 

[wingsandsword]

Wikipedia is a remarkable thing, a largely anarchic, collective, largely decentralized encyclopedia where anybody can say almost anything (for at least a moment, before somebody says something else). The strange thing is, most of the time it works. Yes, sometimes weird things get through, but somebody then finds it and edits it themselves. From a social sciences perspective, Wikipedia is a truly fascinating thing.

Anything controversial, or dubious you should certainly look up in another source. That and check the editing log and see if people have been changing that article a lot. Check the talk page to see what's being debated or disagreed with. If you doubt it, go somewhere else.

Wikipedia is a nice place to get a general summary on an idea, or to look up something obscure, but it's not something you should make major decisions based solely on, and not something you should cite in a serious academic context. For everyday reference purposes, I've found it to be acceptably reliable.

Personally, I see it as the real-life version of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, a reference with editors around the world who provide a relatively informal and strangely ecclectic reference that is also uniquely popular despite their being more respectable reference works available, where an entire planet could be just a stub entry saying "Mostly Harmless".

 

[Darth K'Trava]

No, it isn't. Its on the internet, so you can't believe it!!

So, I guess I can't believe you either....

 

[Jdvn1]

I love a good catch 22

No you don't! I don't believe that!

 

[Starman]

It's much easier to believe everything you read. Remember:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

 

[Desdichado]

Go to www.wikipedia.org.

Look up "ectoplasm."

Now tell me. . . would *you* use wikipedia for serious research?

:\

No offense, but "duh." Of course you don't use Wikipedia for serious research.

What it's best as is a general capsule information on topics about which you know very little, and pop culture.

Beyond that, I'd take every word of Wikipedia with a grain of salt.

 

[Umbran]

Just because some nuthead changed a word on one article out of around 400 000 doesn't invalidate the whole site.

Funny, but I don't think he said the whole site is invalid. He merely suggested that the site was not reliable for "serious research". Unless you figure he means, "That which is not fit for serious research is completely invalid", but I think that leap is not warranted.

Insofar as it is clear that Wikipedia has dubious editing, Chainsaw is correct. However, in the larger sense, Chainsaw is incorrect. Real "serious research" uses multiple carefully chosen sources to establish accuracy, as armor against bias, faulty editing, and so on. Serious researchers are protected. On top of that, in "serious research", there's absolutely no problem with using a dubious source as a starting point. It is the end sources you use to support your case that matter, not where you get your original information sketches.

 

[Kapture]

Funny, but I don't think he said the whole site is invalid. He merely suggested that the site was not reliable for "serious research". Unless you figure he means, "That which is not fit for serious research is completely invalid", but I think that leap is not warranted.

I dunno. I thought chainsaw's tone was pretty dismissive. And I try not to split other people's hairs for them.

Ectoplasm is defined in Mosby's (via Health Wellness Resource) as: the compact, peripheral portion of the cytoplasm of a cell, and in Dorland's as a cell plasma. It doesn't seem to be commonly used: in four resources, I found it twice. Neither definition says anything about ear. A google search draws mentions that ectoplam seems to come out of the ear of mediums. Definition one seems to be some kind of joke, although an ear doctor could better inform us. Otherwise, I thought it was funny.

Definition two seemed sceptical enough, but I will point out that Wikkipedia can be interesting in an anthropological sense: I've found it useful looking up religious/mythological terms in order to find out why the person using it might find it interesting. If I had the time, I would further research the "England's last witch trial claim." It seems like a good bit to base a modern horror adventure off of.

Definition three would be easy to look up in a physics(?) encyclopedia, I'm sure, but I'm too lazy to do it right now.

I think the value of Wikkipedia is based on the value of people's interest in the truth about a subject. For instance, a skeptic like myself or Chainsaw Mage might be more interested in the veracity of supernatural claims. On the other hand, I found nothing to really rouse my suspicion when using Wikkipedia to research diamond mines... but that might have to do with the fact that I really don't care much about mining, was only looking for info to base a game set piece on, and Wikkipedia's info seemed reasonable to me.