-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Has anyone noticed that Wikipedia is quickly becoming the #1 result for anything you google for?
- Thread starter Homerboy
- Start date
krunchykrome
Lifer
I never use wikipedia for anything. I dont even click on the links. It's not a reliable source for information. Schools completely disregard wikipedia as being a source of information for research.
Aikouka
Lifer
Schools, in my experience, don't disregard wikipedia, they disregard encyclopedic resources (which wikipedia is one). I remember the multitude of times during high school that we were told to not use encyclopedic resources because "colleges won't allow them." I've ready news reports that wiki is about as accurate as your printed encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this was all articles or just scientific ones though.
krunchykrome
Lifer
The fact that anyone can go into wikipedia and write some BS information on any subject makes wikipedia unreliable. Regardless of whether people contribute accurate information to the website or not, it doesnt have any credibility. It amazes me how often people here on ATOT will defend a position or argument referring to a wikipedia definition.
I haven't touched or even seen an encyclopedia in maye 10 years. Resources are credible if they are scholarly journals, published, or just plain ole written by a credible source like a doctor or such. Whether or not the doctor for example is accurate with his statements is another issue, but the fact that he is a doctor makes his statement hold a certain level of credibility.
krunchykrome
Lifer
Why do you say that?
herbiehancock
Senior member
But just because the article in question has references listed below it, doesn't mean that the snippet of info hasn't been doctored/corrupted by an idiot on a "I played with Wiki and messed it up good!" spree.
True, the referenced sources are nice to have.........but does not ensure any accuracy in what you see on the page, since, as has been mentioned before, it can change in a moment.
The only true way to make sure you're reading FACTUAL information is to actually refer back to those references and read the sourced material.........and I'm sure EVERYONE does that.
True, the referenced sources are nice to have.........but does not ensure any accuracy in what you see on the page, since, as has been mentioned before, it can change in a moment.
The only true way to make sure you're reading FACTUAL information is to actually refer back to those references and read the sourced material.........and I'm sure EVERYONE does that.
krunchykrome
Lifer
I agree with you. I'd bet most of the stuff written on wikipedia is probably accurate; but that doesnt make it credible. And referring to wikipedia makes people look like an a$$ IMO.
krunchykrome
Lifer
If you want to take that route, then thats great, and wikipedia might work for you. But I really don't think most people will back track and follow up on the wikipedia information to make sure that it's accurate.
