Wikipedia plagued with errors

[mzkhadir]

msnbc

 

[dartworth]

If you believe something is important enough to post, you must have some opinion of your own about the content of the article or link.

 

[jagec]

I wouldn't say "plagued". It actually tends to be pretty good on science stuff. But you should always ask yourself "is that reasonable"? And check other links. Heck, they usually have half-a-dozen links to more authoritative sites that confirm whatever's on the wikipedia entry.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: dartworth

If you believe something is important enough to post, you must have some opinion of your own about the content of the article or link.

This ain't P&N 😛

 

[waggy]

well duh!

 

[olds]

NO WAI! They let anyone edit it and it's not factual? Stop the presses.

 

[mugs]

The department banned students from using it as a source in their papers, although they are allowed to consult it for background material, a move that was quickly mimicked by professors at other schools, including UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania.

I'm really disappointed that they would even have to ban Wikipedia specifically. It is an encyclopedia! An encyclopedia is not an appropriate reference for a research paper. An encyclopedia essentially IS a collection of research papers.

🙁

 

[fleshconsumed]

Well, sure Wiki has errors. However, read any technical article on msnbc or any other big website and it will have 10x errors/misconceptions than wiki because author simply doesn't understand the issue, so.... it's kind of ironic hearing it from msnbc.

 

[slpaulson]

Who the heck would use wikipedia as a reference?
It's not a bad place to start, but you better find real sources to back up anything you may find on wikipedia.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Well, sure Wiki has errors. However, read any technical article on msnbc or any other big website and it will have 10x errors/misconceptions than wiki because author simply doesn't understand the issue, so.... it's kind of ironic hearing it from msnbc.

and ya... considering Wiki is MS's Encarta's biggest rival.

 

[mugs]

Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Repeat after me - Wikipedia. Wiki is not a sensible abbreviation of Wikipedia any more than "prolly" is a sensible abbreviation of "probably." Wikipedia is not the only website to use a wiki, and it is not the first (by far). The Wikimedia Foundation did not invent or have any hand in inventing the wiki. Wikipedia is the name of the site, wiki is the type of software it uses.

 

[spidey07]

It just goes to show "don't believe anything you read on the Intarweb".

I honestly think wikipedia is the most widely used source of misinformation there is. It's nice for inquisitive searches, but it is most likely off base - filled with false information.

 

[SKORPI0]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
and ya... considering Wiki is MS's Encarta's biggest rival.

Interesting, I haven't used Encarta in ages considering updates take a while. Probably MS is worried that sales of their program will/is suffering because of other sources of information/misinformation.

 

[OsoVerde]

Wikipedia is usually pretty good for articles I'd deem "serious"- math, science, history, other stuff that has a lot of readily available good information to use.
When you get in to the less "serious" topics- p0rn actors, UFOs, paranormal, etc. that don't have much in the way of factual resources and wouldn't be found in a print encyclopedia, then things get sketchy.

 

[BigJ]

If politics are involved in the subject, don't use Wikipedia. So while it's great for looking up math theorems or CS concepts, stay far far away from it on stuff like the global warming.

Almost all of my professors say not to cite Wikipedia as a source because my college hasn't banned it yet. Now the research papers in the footnote at the bottom of Wikipedia entries, those work great.

 

[Aikouka]

Didn't a study show that Wikipedia had about as many errors as Britannica? Personally, Wikipedia has some advantages being easily editable, but they can also serve to be disadvantages as well. Convenience, speed of news and sheer amount come at a price 😉.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Didn't a study show that Wikipedia had about as many errors as Britannica? Personally, Wikipedia has some advantages being easily editable, but they can also serve to be disadvantages as well. Convenience, speed of news and sheer amount come at a price 😉.

Well, Wikipedia is an easy target because anyone can edit it. I believe Wikipedia has some errors, but overall I think its a very good source to get a good knowledge of a certain topic. When you go into the really fine details, you will want to consult other sources. But overall I think it's one of the best sites on the Internet.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: mugs

The department banned students from using it as a source in their papers, although they are allowed to consult it for background material, a move that was quickly mimicked by professors at other schools, including UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania.

I'm really disappointed that they would even have to ban Wikipedia specifically. It is an encyclopedia! An encyclopedia is not an appropriate reference for a research paper. An encyclopedia essentially IS a collection of research papers.

🙁

2 of my instructors have told us that if wikipedia is used as a source of facts in any of our work, it gets an automatic "F"...
"While much of the info there is great, the ability to edit things randomly make the chance of false info too high to accept for course work. "
Occasionally, I'll use the info I gather there to do other searches for info, but NEVER actually use the quotes from teh wiki...

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: mugs
Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Repeat after me - Wikipedia. Wiki is not a sensible abbreviation of Wikipedia any more than "prolly" is a sensible abbreviation of "probably." Wikipedia is not the only website to use a wiki, and it is not the first (by far). The Wikimedia Foundation did not invent or have any hand in inventing the wiki. Wikipedia is the name of the site, wiki is the type of software it uses.

wiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wiki!

 

[moshquerade]

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

Whenever content can be changed or added by those who have no real knowledge of the subject it cannot be counted on as accurate.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: mugs

The department banned students from using it as a source in their papers, although they are allowed to consult it for background material, a move that was quickly mimicked by professors at other schools, including UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania.

I'm really disappointed that they would even have to ban Wikipedia specifically. It is an encyclopedia! An encyclopedia is not an appropriate reference for a research paper. An encyclopedia essentially IS a collection of research papers.

🙁

Originally posted by: cRazYdood
Who the heck would use wikipedia as a reference?
It's not a bad place to start, but you better find real sources to back up anything you may find on wikipedia.

Agreed.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: mugs

The department banned students from using it as a source in their papers, although they are allowed to consult it for background material, a move that was quickly mimicked by professors at other schools, including UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania.

I'm really disappointed that they would even have to ban Wikipedia specifically. It is an encyclopedia! An encyclopedia is not an appropriate reference for a research paper. An encyclopedia essentially IS a collection of research papers.

🙁

2 of my instructors have told us that if wikipedia is used as a source of facts in any of our work, it gets an automatic "F"...
"While much of the info there is great, the ability to edit things randomly make the chance of false info too high to accept for course work. "
Occasionally, I'll use the info I gather there to do other searches for info, but NEVER actually use the quotes from teh wiki...

Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought you were a crane operator and in your 40s or so. 😕

Anyway - yeah, Wikipedia is a good place to find real sources for a paper.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: mugs
Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Repeat after me - Wikipedia. Wiki is not a sensible abbreviation of Wikipedia any more than "prolly" is a sensible abbreviation of "probably." Wikipedia is not the only website to use a wiki, and it is not the first (by far). The Wikimedia Foundation did not invent or have any hand in inventing the wiki. Wikipedia is the name of the site, wiki is the type of software it uses.

wiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wiki!

I see your wikiwiki's and double it!

wiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wiki!wiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wikiwiki wiki!

 

[preslove]

ALL encyclopedias are plagued by errors.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: mugs

The department banned students from using it as a source in their papers, although they are allowed to consult it for background material, a move that was quickly mimicked by professors at other schools, including UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania.

I'm really disappointed that they would even have to ban Wikipedia specifically. It is an encyclopedia! An encyclopedia is not an appropriate reference for a research paper. An encyclopedia essentially IS a collection of research papers.

🙁

2 of my instructors have told us that if wikipedia is used as a source of facts in any of our work, it gets an automatic "F"...
"While much of the info there is great, the ability to edit things randomly make the chance of false info too high to accept for course work. "
Occasionally, I'll use the info I gather there to do other searches for info, but NEVER actually use the quotes from teh wiki...

Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought you were a crane operator and in your 40s or so. 😕

Anyway - yeah, Wikipedia is a good place to find real sources for a paper.

Well, you're close...I'm a medically disabled crane operator in my 50's...going back to school for the first time since 1970...under a voc-rehab program...