POLL: Do you trust Wikipedia and / or Snopes?

[FelixDeCat]

While both sites are sometimes useful and or informative, no source is definative. I think both should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially Snopes! Sometimes they are so full of sh|t...and people believe it because they want to believe in something.

 

[Conky]

Snopes I believe, Wikipedia not so much.

 

[TitanDiddly]

I <3 wikipedia.

 

[TheChort]

definitely depends what i need it for
This might seem obvious to some, but for something like a research paper, I consider wiki as close to a reliable source as my senile uncle's opinions
But if im curious about a topic im seeing for the first time, Wiki is a great stepping stone

 

[fs5]

Snopes, Yes
Wikipedia, only for common topics, just means more people have edited it

 

[nageov3t]

as much as I believe any other tertiary source of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_source

nice jumping off points, but they can't replace primary sources and peer-review articles for serious research.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: TitanDiddly
I <3 wikipedia.

same here!

 

[notfred]

For the most part, yes.

 

[Viper GTS]

Snopes > Wikipedia

The ability for a dumbass to mess with Wikipedia really lowers its value, though it seems to self-correct quickly.

Snopes I generally trust, though I only use it to persuade others to stop spreading internet rumors.



Viper GTS

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Snopes > Wikipedia

The ability for a dumbass to mess with Wikipedia really lowers its value, though it seems to self-correct quickly.

Snopes I generally trust, though I only use it to persuade others to stop spreading internet rumors.



Viper GTS

You mean Al Gore really did invent the internet?

 

[placebo139]

I use both as resources for general information. However, I would never rely on either as research sources; only as suggestions to direct me towards the primary or proper sources of information.

 

[ForumMaster]

while there was the prob with wiki a while ago, i read an article in the paper that said that this proffesor tested out wikipedia, and found it for the most part (maybe not everything) too be as reliable as Oxford or Britanica. if you don't trust those as well, well that's your problem. I trust wiki, but i always double check. i won't do a paper that is totally based on wiki but i'll always look there. Snopes? Why should i believe it? some of the things there make sense but others...i'll stick to wiki thanks.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
while there was the prob with wiki a while ago, i read an article in the paper that said that this proffesor tested out wikipedia, and found it for the most part (maybe not everything) too be as reliable as Oxford or Britanica. if you don't trust those as well, well that's your problem. I trust wiki, but i always double check. i won't do a paper that is totally based on wiki but i'll always look there. Snopes? Why should i believe it? some of the things there make sense but others...i'll stick to wiki thanks.

Any source that you need to double check immediately makes it not fully trustworthy.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Snopes > Wikipedia

The ability for a dumbass to mess with Wikipedia really lowers its value, though it seems to self-correct quickly.

Snopes I generally trust, though I only use it to persuade others to stop spreading internet rumors.



Viper GTS

You mean Al Gore really did invent the internet?

Ah, considering what both sites had to say about that topic, I guess you don't trust them because they're too liberal?

 

[skace]

All sources should be taken with a grain of salt. Snopes and Wikipedia are amazing starting points.

 

[Mucho]

For me Wikipedia is not the last word.

 

[Illusions89]

I use them both......:thumbsup:

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: TitanDiddly
I <3 wikipedia.

same here!

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

point us to something on Snopes you don't believe????

 

[poopaskoopa]

I pretty much accept everything I read on both sources. It's not like I write papers using those sites and the information I'd be looking up at these sites aren't critical.

 

[archiloco]

i guess i belived in them too much. i will take them with a grain of salt now, but the stuff on xenu on wiki was hilarious!!!! hehe.

 

[mflacy]

I've seen students turn in papers with Wikipedia citations only to get ripped to shreds by their professors for their stupidity. Wikipedia is a wasteland for poor writing and misinformation.

 

[TheTony]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
point us to something on Snopes you don't believe????

Seconded.

It's ironic that you think Snopes is "full of it", since their main purpose is to debunk rumors and urban legends. They are not a general information resource, like Wikipedia is. In that regard, you can't directly compare them, even if both have entries on the same topics.

With regard to content, Wikipedia is definitely more open to inaccurate inforation than Snopes, due to its open nature, but it is also an infinitely broader source of information for that same reason.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Snopes provides copious documentation, I'm inclined to believe them. Wiki is useful for many things, but it cannot ever be a definitive source. I consider Wiki to be more of a "cultural encyclopaedia" than an actual encyclopaedia.

ZV

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
point us to something on Snopes you don't believe????

I don't save links to Snopes, but I know on more than one occasion Snope's has denied something, only to reverse that denial when you actually read the details It goes like this:

Claim: Tomatoes are red.

Status: False

Origins: While tomatoes really are red, they start out green. So they aren't really red.

It's BS like that that makes me hate Snopes.